# US SOCCER



## Dominic (Jun 26, 2018)

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-american-men-suck-soccer-world-cup-2018-6?jwsource=cl


----------



## younothat (Jun 26, 2018)

Yeah read that earlier some of things that  stood out:

"Noah Davis: I think one of the things that limits it is pay-to-play, I mean it's a problem.

Ocbazghi: Noah Davis has reported on soccer for ESPN and Bleacher Report.

Davis: So pay-to-play is this idea that to be a part of your local club, you have to pay for a spot on the team. In Europe, most of the clubs are free and so you don't have to pay. The way that those clubs make money is that their professional team or their men's team makes money and that, you know, that pays for the youth clubs, and you need money to pay-to-play in the US.

Ocbazghi: So, if your family is low income, you don't have that great of a chance of excelling in the US. Meanwhile, some of soccer's biggest stars like Ronaldo, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, and Neymar all come from poverty.

But Manny, school soccer is free. Why can't kids just play there? Well, they can and do, but that's actually another reason why US Soccer is falling behind. US schools don't invest in their teams as much European Soccer Clubs, so as a result, the path of your typical US player is much different than in Europe.

Davis: The soccer ecosystem in the US is not as fully developed as it is in another European Country. In European countries, there are a lot more clubs, at a lot of different levels, and England has, I mean, they have 20 different levels of clubs all different professionalisms. Some are amateur, some are professional. So, in England, if a player is good, he'll play for his local club, but that club will also have an adult team, so you can kind of, you go up the food chain in a much more natural progression than you do in the US."

"So, if we want to get better, the US Soccer Federation has to develop a better system. It can't be the case that potential stars aren't found because they can't afford to play or that they're just overlooked entirely."


----------



## timbuck (Jun 26, 2018)

This is why we suck at soccer.  We don’t have anyone that feels soccer is life and death. 
https://www.theplayerstribune.com/es-es/articles/angel-di-maria-argentina-english

And that’s probably an ok thing for our country overall. 
Clint Dempsey and Gyasi Zardes are maybe examples of players that came from the slums. But the rest of the national team have all had a “Plan B” in life.


----------



## younothat (Jun 26, 2018)

timbuck said:


> This is why we suck at soccer.  We don’t have anyone that feels soccer is life and death.
> https://www.theplayerstribune.com/es-es/articles/angel-di-maria-argentina-english
> 
> And that’s probably an ok thing for our country overall.
> Clint Dempsey and Gyasi Zardes are maybe examples of players that came from the slums. But the rest of the national team have all had a “Plan B” in life.


Nice read on the di maria article

GZ... is from Hawthorne, home of Space X,  no not a slum but yeah I recall him mentioning growing up in poverty


----------



## younothat (Jun 27, 2018)

Roger Bennett on 'American Fiasco,' the state of U.S. soccer and the 'siren call' of Chicago
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/soccer/ct-spt-soccer-american-fiasco-roger-bennett-20180626-story.html

*How big of a missed opportunity was the Americans’ failure to qualify for this year’s World Cup?*

It was a darkness. A darkness for the players, who missed the jewel of their careers. It was a bigger darkness for the fans, especially for the “American Outlaws” who, in the last World Cup became just the darlings of world football. I feed badly for them. And it was a darkness for Fox. … Thank goodness for them this is one of the best World Cups of my lifetime.

The best news, which I think has been under-reported and underappreciated, is that the 2026 World Cup will be coming to Canada, Mexico and the U.S. — the NAFTA World Cup, if NAFTA is still around by then. That will be a huge lift for the sport, the money that will be coming in that can be put to youth development and scouting and to coaching, my god, to coaching. Coaching in this country needs to uptick significantly, and then some.

The award by FIFA of that 2026 World Cup is game-changing. 1994 made America not hate soccer anymore. I think 2026 will be deeply transformative.


----------



## Toepoke (Jun 27, 2018)

younothat said:


> "Noah Davis: I think one of the things that limits it is pay-to-play, I mean it's a problem.
> 
> Davis: So pay-to-play is this idea that to be a part of your local club, you have to pay for a spot on the team. In Europe, most of the clubs are free and so you don't have to pay. The way that those clubs make money is that their professional team or their men's team makes money and that, you know, that pays for the youth clubs, and you need money to pay-to-play in the US.
> 
> "So, if we want to get better, the US Soccer Federation has to develop a better system. It can't be the case that potential stars aren't found because they can't afford to play or that they're just overlooked entirely."


Help me understand why pay-to-play is the problem with finding elite soccer players when pay-to-play is the standard in all competitive youth sports in the US? Baseball, Basketball, Hockey and Gymnastics are all global sports and we have no problem finding elite talent for those sports within the pay-to-play system. Of those 4 sports, Basketball has produced many elite players who's families were below the US median income. Even non global sports such as Football and Competitive Cheer/Dance are pay-to-play that have found elite talent. If you think soccer is expensive talk to a parent with a child in cheer or dance. Wow! 

To me pay-to-play is just part of doing business in the US because it's not hindering us in finding talent in other sports. Am I missing something?


----------



## INFAMEE (Jun 27, 2018)

Toepoke said:


> Help me understand why pay-to-play is the problem with finding elite soccer players when pay-to-play is the standard in all competitive youth sports in the US? Baseball, Basketball, Hockey and Gymnastics are all global sports and we have no problem finding elite talent for those sports within the pay-to-play system. Of those 4 sports, Basketball has produced many elite players who's families were below the US median income. Even non global sports such as Football and Competitive Cheer/Dance are pay-to-play that have found elite talent. If you think soccer is expensive talk to a parent with a child in cheer or dance. Wow!
> 
> To me pay-to-play is just part of doing business in the US because it's not hindering us in finding talent in other sports. Am I missing something?


Toepoke has been here for a very long time and still doesn't get it. We beat this dead horse at last once a month 12 times a year. I guess we were all missing the part where's he's literally retarded.

Most pay for play parents are in denial and believe their players are just as talented as the rest of the world. Even when they don't make the world cup.


----------



## espola (Jun 27, 2018)

Toepoke said:


> Help me understand why pay-to-play is the problem with finding elite soccer players when pay-to-play is the standard in all competitive youth sports in the US? Baseball, Basketball, Hockey and Gymnastics are all global sports and we have no problem finding elite talent for those sports within the pay-to-play system. Of those 4 sports, Basketball has produced many elite players who's families were below the US median income. Even non global sports such as Football and Competitive Cheer/Dance are pay-to-play that have found elite talent. If you think soccer is expensive talk to a parent with a child in cheer or dance. Wow!
> 
> To me pay-to-play is just part of doing business in the US because it's not hindering us in finding talent in other sports. Am I missing something?


Yes.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 27, 2018)

Toepoke said:


> Help me understand why pay-to-play is the problem with finding elite soccer players when pay-to-play is the standard in all competitive youth sports in the US? Baseball, Basketball, Hockey and Gymnastics are all global sports and we have no problem finding elite talent for those sports within the pay-to-play system. Of those 4 sports, Basketball has produced many elite players who's families were below the US median income. Even non global sports such as Football and Competitive Cheer/Dance are pay-to-play that have found elite talent. If you think soccer is expensive talk to a parent with a child in cheer or dance. Wow!
> 
> To me pay-to-play is just part of doing business in the US because it's not hindering us in finding talent in other sports. Am I missing something?


Soccer just isn't as important to us than the rest of the world, I will take running water over being a top soccer country and so would they.


----------



## Toepoke (Jun 27, 2018)

Sheriff Joe said:


> Soccer just isn't as important to us than the rest of the world...


Exactly!   That's why I don't understand why the same old excuse about pay-to-play continues to be discussed by people with more soccer knowledge than I'll ever have as the reason why our men's team is not successful.


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 27, 2018)

younothat said:


> Nice read on the di maria article
> 
> GZ... is from Hawthorne, home of Space X,  no not a slum but yeah I recall him mentioning growing up in poverty


Hawthorne didn't have Space X when this was his hood. Much rougher than it is now.  It's changed a lot in the past 10 years.  Thanks to SapceX and Amazon and that new Rams stadium, folks who bought homes there when it was gang territory in the 90's could sell and buy a mansion in most other states.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 27, 2018)

Toepoke said:


> Exactly!   That's why I don't understand why the same old excuse about pay-to-play continues to be discussed by people with more soccer knowledge than I'll ever have as the reason why our men's team is not successful.


Politics. These people are globalists.
The best athletes in the USA are doing something else, but with this concussion thing in football that could change in the coming years.


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 27, 2018)

Toepoke said:


> To me pay-to-play is just part of doing business in the US because it's not hindering us in finding talent in other sports. Am I missing something?


Pay-to-play shrinks the size of your starting population of available talent.  Almost all the other sports you mentioned are traditionally white-middle class sports:  Gymnastics, Hockey, cheer, even baseball to a certain extent.  Those sports require a different sort of athleticism, mentality, and body type than football, basketball, and soccer.  Those sports require more sheer speed and explosiveness and aggression (save maybe hockey, but hockey is unquestionably a white-middle class sport all the way.)  The athletes that dominate basketball and American Football are generally African American and from lower income demographics.   Quite simply, there are more poor people than middle class or rich.  Soccer in other countries (because of the feverish passion) pull from every demographic, so there is no filter on the entry level for soccer in those countries.  Here, the lower income families across the US don't play soccer because it isn't a passion sport.  But even if they wanted to, they couldn't get scouted or developed because soccer is a suburban middle-class sport.  So it's both.  It's the lack of soccer culture, but the fact that pay-to-play is the only route for most decent youth players, it automatically creates an environment where the sport can't develop that cross-class passion that other places have.

Edit:  And basketball and football are not pay-to-play at the premium developmental levels for youth: High School.  HS Soccer has been undermined by P2P club soccer.


----------



## NJSoccer (Jun 27, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Pay-to-play shrinks the size of your starting population of available talent.  Almost all the other sports you mentioned are traditionally white-middle class sports:  Gymnastics, Hockey, cheer, even baseball to a certain extent.  Those sports require a different sort of athleticism, mentality, and body type than football, basketball, and soccer.  Those sports require more sheer speed and explosiveness and aggression (save maybe hockey, but hockey is unquestionably a white-middle class sport all the way.)  The athletes that dominate basketball and American Football are generally African American and from lower income demographics.   Quite simply, there are more poor people than middle class or rich.  Soccer in other countries (because of the feverish passion) pull from every demographic, so there is no filter on the entry level for soccer in those countries.  Here, the lower income families across the US don't play soccer because it isn't a passion sport.  But even if they wanted to, they couldn't get scouted or developed because soccer is a suburban middle-class sport.  So it's both.  It's the lack of soccer culture, but the fact that pay-to-play is the only route for most decent youth players, it automatically creates an environment where the sport can't develop that cross-class passion that other places have.
> 
> Edit:  And basketball and football are not pay-to-play at the premium developmental levels for youth: High School.  HS Soccer has been undermined by P2P club soccer.


I think in Soccernomics they mentioned how Soccer is actually a low-medium income sport, and how they have a hard time attracting upper-income college bound kids. They also mentioned how other European countries don’t have this stigma, but still have a lot of kids from low-medium income. 

There is a decent article that talks about issues in US (2 years old)

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/jun/01/us-soccer-diversity-problem-world-football

The pain point in US is still lack of grassroots infrastructure (esp inner city play areas) and a path to go forward. Around the world the clubs have a vested interest to make the academy free - with the return on investment from transfer fees. I do not know how it would work in US (anyone care to fill in the gaps of the money model for clubs) ?


----------



## timbuck (Jun 27, 2018)

There really isn’t much of a path beyond playing in college in the US.  
All of our “main” sports have college as the step before playing professionally.  
If you play soccer in college in the US and then make it to the MLS, the income is pretty weak compared to other sports. And compared to what 1st team pros make in the rest of the world.


----------



## jpeter (Jun 27, 2018)

timbuck said:


> There really isn’t much of a path beyond playing in college in the US.
> All of our “main” sports have college as the step before playing professionally.
> If you play soccer in college in the US and then make it to the MLS, the income is pretty weak compared to other sports. And compared to what 1st team pros make in the rest of the world.


With the mls draft 4 rounds: 60-80 college players may get selected each year,   but many don't make the 1st team roster, not many past the 1 round picks stick.  Besides Jordan Morris most are hard pressed to name a us college star player in the MLS.


----------



## timbuck (Jun 27, 2018)

https://www.sounderatheart.com/2016/1/22/10815898/details-of-jordan-morris-homegrown-player-contract

Richest homegrown player contract in history. 
He signed a 3 year deal for $225 a year.  Not chump change, but:
1.  It’s less than the league minimum in the NFL
2. It’s probably not far off from what a Stanford grad earns pretty quickly after graduating with a computer science degree 
3. It’s not going to be enough to bring your family out of the ‘hood for life.


----------



## Round (Jun 27, 2018)

If it wasn't for pay to play and title IX there would be no women's soccer.  

What's wrong is US Soccer, little power hungry pricks.


----------



## Fact (Jun 27, 2018)

Round said:


> If it wasn't for pay to play and title IX there would be no women's soccer.
> 
> What's wrong is US Soccer, little power hungry pricks.


 No really, please tell us how you really feel.


----------



## ToonArmy (Jun 28, 2018)

In AAU basketball if you are playing on a team on the top level in the nation the shoe companies pay for it. And you dont have to pay for tuition at Mater Dei either. And if you are a possible 1 and done college to nba player someone associated with you maybe your coach maybe your family is actually getting paid


----------



## younothat (Jun 28, 2018)

Well, just today:

"Hope Solo calls US soccer a 'rich white-kid sport"
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/06/28/hope-solo-calls-us-soccer-rich-white-kid-sport.html

One reason why the U.S. men’s national soccer team failed to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia is that soccer in America is a “rich white-kid sport,” former U.S. women's team goalie Hope Solo said Wednesday.

Solo, a two-time Olympic gold medalist, was speaking at the Hashtag Sports conference in New York City. She said the sport in the U.S. is too expensive for Latino, African-American and rural kids to play -- adding that if she was a kid today her family wouldn’t be able to afford to help her advance in the game.

“We have alienated the Hispanic communities. We have alienated our black communities. We have alienated the underrepresented communities, even rural communities," Solo said, according to Sporting News. "So soccer in America right now is a rich white-kid sport.” 

Although we have been very fortunate to be on mostly sponsored teams we always make sure the kids and I give back helping the organizations with volunteering, out reach activities, giving back, donating to the "friends of"  associated charity arms.   With that about 75% of my sons teammates over the years didn't have the means to pay club soccer fees, travel costs which can be $500-600+ for a weekend trip to play Seattle & Vancouver, etc. and without sponsorship they would have not be able to play or be his teammates.


----------



## ToonArmy (Jun 28, 2018)

Someone has to pay for the tracksuits and English accents they don't come cheap not in so cal the land of the mega club where you can at 7 years old join a D team in flight 4 for 3,000 a year and eventually ECNL for 6,000 a year. Or, ill use my hometown of Santa Ana as an example, play rec Mexican league for ref rees, go to Godinez hs win cif and state championships and go unnoticed into the working world and keep playing sunday leagues for the love of the game


----------



## timbuck (Jun 28, 2018)

Those Godinez HS graduates could get their E license and make decent money coaching kids a few miles away.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 28, 2018)

younothat said:


> Well, just today:
> 
> "Hope Solo calls US soccer a 'rich white-kid sport"
> http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2018/06/28/hope-solo-calls-us-soccer-rich-white-kid-sport.html
> ...


Are we supposed to feel sorry for the Hispanic community or the USA?


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Jun 28, 2018)

Great piece from Di Maria.

P2P is an easy scapegoat for people who want to grab headlines or run for USSF president.  I don't know much about youth soccer in Mexico, but I assume they don't pay $3K a year for club soccer.  There is obviously no lack of passion, yet Mexico historically doesn't fare much better than US in international competition.  We're all here debating why US did not qualify for World Cup, but the sad thing is the CONCACAF teams that US couldn't beat in qualifying will end up 2-1-6 (W-D-L) in the World Cup.  We really have a long long way to go.

I strongly believe culture has a lot more to do than anything else, and having a top notch local professional league is a must.  I remember growing up in the 80s watching Lakers-Celtics, and all I wanted to do was playing basketball all day.  I just don't see the same level of passion for soccer compared to other sports.  I consider myself an avid soccer fan and can probably name the 22 starters on Barca and Real, but honestly and sadly I can't name more than three players from LAFC.


----------



## texanincali (Jun 29, 2018)

First, let me say that I am not a fan of pay to play and wish it didn't exist.  However, people tend to use this as a crutch for what is wrong with soccer, but in reality, I don't think it is the problem.  I have been around this game for a long time, playing, coaching and as a parent.  I do not recall one situation I have been a part of in which a truly talented player was denied a chance to play on a team because they couldn't afford it.  There are so many things that we need to fix in our system just to make the US competitive on the world stage, but pay to play isn't at the top.

Ask yourselves these questions.  If we were to stop charging kids to play on top level teams, is there an immediate improvement?  The bottom line is that youth soccer and academies have to be funded.  In Europe, they are funded by people who purchase tickets to first team matches, buy concessions at first team matches and buy merchandise in the fan shop - the fans are the ones that are essentially "paying for the youth to play."

The only difference here is the fact that the non-MLS Academy teams do not have match day revenue and merchandise revenue to generate enough money to fund an academy.  Instead of thousands of fans funding the academy, there are hundreds of parents that pick up the slack.

As stated before, I wish there was a way to get rid of pay to play, but I have yet to see a viable solution brought to the table.  The most immediate thing that can be done is for our stupid Federation to get out of the way and let these youth clubs that develop and send players to Europe to start earning the payments that every other club in the world is entitled to.  

Many will say that these clubs don't deserve these payments because they have already charged players to participate, and I somewhat agree with that notion.  However, why can't a club use these funds to first pay back the parents of that kid and then put the rest to the further development of the club.  That further development could be reduced fees, additional coaching, better fields, etc.

It is not an easy situation, but pay to play is not the main issue holding back our players and keeping our NT from competing on the world stage.  Italy and Holland don't have pay to play at the highest level of youth soccer and they experienced the same failure as we did.


----------



## MWN (Jun 29, 2018)

@Messi>CR7 and @texanincali,

What each of you wrote I agree with.  But you also need to consider that in Europe/Latin America, etc., clubs are financially incentivized to "invest" in development players and are reimbursed/encouraged to move these players up to the higher levels.  The FIFA Article 19 Training and Solidarity payments provide a decent source of revenue and in some cases a windfall to the smaller local clubs.  Wen 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.  The failure of the Federation to adopt Article 19 RSTP simply makes pay-to-play the only option.

That said, I think 90% of the problem with World Cup qualifying has nothing to do with the youth system, rather, we have no top level (on an international basis) professional league.  As long as we pull players to the National Team from the MLS, a league with teams that would be (2nd or 3rd level) in most countries, it will be hard.  The good news, however, is we are getting more and more of our better talent out of the MLS and into the European leagues.  Drawing from these players will be the difference.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

texanincali said:


> First, let me say that I am not a fan of pay to play and wish it didn't exist.  However, people tend to use this as a crutch for what is wrong with soccer, but in reality, I don't think it is the problem.  I have been around this game for a long time, playing, coaching and as a parent.  I do not recall one situation I have been a part of in which a truly talented player was denied a chance to play on a team because they couldn't afford it.  There are so many things that we need to fix in our system just to make the US competitive on the world stage, but pay to play isn't at the top.
> 
> Ask yourselves these questions.  If we were to stop charging kids to play on top level teams, is there an immediate improvement?  The bottom line is that youth soccer and academies have to be funded.  In Europe, they are funded by people who purchase tickets to first team matches, buy concessions at first team matches and buy merchandise in the fan shop - the fans are the ones that are essentially "paying for the youth to play."
> 
> ...


What pisses me off the most is the whole "rich white kid" bullshit is that my white kid isn't rich, maybe rich compared to poor kids that may or may not be in this country legally.
That is not my/our problem, everyone can afford rec.
I wonder why these super soccer countries that don't have pay to play don't produce hundreds of Messy, Ronaldo or Neymar types, they only have 1 great player per team usually, if that.
Maybe Germany should adopt pay to play?


----------



## texanincali (Jun 29, 2018)

MWN said:


> @Messi>CR7 and @texanincali,
> 
> What each of you wrote I agree with.  But you also need to consider that in Europe/Latin America, etc., clubs are financially incentivized to "invest" in development players and are reimbursed/encouraged to move these players up to the higher levels.  The FIFA Article 19 Training and Solidarity payments provide a decent source of revenue and in some cases a windfall to the smaller local clubs.  Wen 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.  The failure of the Federation to adopt Article 19 RSTP simply makes pay-to-play the only option.
> 
> That said, I think 90% of the problem with World Cup qualifying has nothing to do with the youth system, rather, we have no top level (on an international basis) professional league.  As long as we pull players to the National Team from the MLS, a league with teams that would be (2nd or 3rd level) in most countries, it will be hard.  The good news, however, is we are getting more and more of our better talent out of the MLS and into the European leagues.  Drawing from these players will be the difference.


Pretty much exactly what I said was he biggest issue.  Adopting training and solidarity compensation will not rid ourselves of pay to play - but it should eliminate it at some of the higher levels.

I am convinced that the non-enforcement of this FIFA requirement has nothing to do with collective bargaining with the Frazier case, but everything to do with MLS clubs and owners admitting MLS will always be second choice for truly talented American youths.  

They don’t play the US kids anyways - what’s the issue.  I have heard rumors that there are some MLS clubs that will join the Crossfire, Sockers, Texans complaint/lawsuit, but haven’t seen any confirmation.


----------



## espola (Jun 29, 2018)

texanincali said:


> Pretty much exactly what I said was he biggest issue.  Adopting training and solidarity compensation will not rid ourselves of pay to play - but it should eliminate it at some of the higher levels.
> 
> I am convinced that the non-enforcement of this FIFA requirement has nothing to do with collective bargaining with the Frazier case, but everything to do with MLS clubs and owners admitting MLS will always be second choice for truly talented American youths.
> 
> They don’t play the US kids anyways - what’s the issue.  I have heard rumors that there are some MLS clubs that will join the Crossfire, Sockers, Texans complaint/lawsuit, but haven’t seen any confirmation.


Rumors that MLS teams will act against their own financial interests?  Tell us more.


----------



## jpeter (Jun 29, 2018)

Pay to play is a problem, a big one that goes along with the whole entitlement mindset in youth sports. 

Those in favor also don't want regulation & promotion either another problem.

If we don't change we won't keep up and will continue to miss the Olympics the World Cup and not showing well internationally.

A mayrid of closed leagues with no real soccer pyramid,  without a way to advance  within a pay to play system that don't reward players or teams  on performance merits but does inrich the establishment is the state of youth soccer currently.

Earn what you get used to be American way, now we have a entitlement system created that has showed not to work well time & time again, time to change.   Pay to play hasn't produce world class players yet for the us men's by now so it may never do so.


----------



## texanincali (Jun 29, 2018)

espola said:


> Rumors that MLS teams will act against their own financial interests?  Tell us more.


That's what you took from that?  Genius.

It's all about financial interest.  Why are the European Academies free?  Is it because the clubs have a financial incentive (benefit) to produce players?  Is it because they have big hearts and want to help to kids out and give them something to do in their free time?  Why is a MLS Academy and a non-MLS Academy any different?

If anyone needs to tell you more, that's an issue.


----------



## timbuck (Jun 29, 2018)

jpeter said:


> Pay to play is a problem, a big one that goes along with the whole entitlement mindset in youth sports.
> 
> Those in favor also don't want regulation & promotion either another problem.
> 
> ...


Pay to play will probably always be around.  But why does it have to be so expensive?
$250 nike/adidas uniforms?
$650 EZ Ups
$100 benches
$750+ tournament fees
$14,000 for a coach to run a team?  Plus "administrative" costs for DOC and other club members
Private training at $50+ an hour?
$112 for a referee team to run a 70 minute game?
"Big" tournaments in Las Vegas, Dallas and Del Mar  (with $200+ hotel fees)
FWR playoffs in Honolulu?
Showcase events that cater to college scouts with free food, cigar bars and golf cart transportation
Edit:  and $400 to get a “D” license to coach. 

Aside from the coach and the referee -  NONE of this stuff really helps to make a world class player.  And there are some great coaches out there who will do it for a lot less.


----------



## espola (Jun 29, 2018)

texanincali said:


> That's what you took from that?  Genius.
> 
> It's all about financial interest.  Why are the European Academies free?  Is it because the clubs have a financial incentive (benefit) to produce players?  Is it because they have big hearts and want to help to kids out and give them something to do in their free time?  Why is a MLS Academy and a non-MLS Academy any different?
> 
> If anyone needs to tell you more, that's an issue.


You said " I have heard rumors that there are some MLS clubs that will join the Crossfire, Sockers, Texans complaint/lawsuit, but haven’t seen any confirmation."  Why would the MLS clubs do that?


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

texanincali said:


> That's what you took from that?  Genius.
> 
> It's all about financial interest.  Why are the European Academies free?  Is it because the clubs have a financial incentive (benefit) to produce players?  Is it because they have big hearts and want to help to kids out and give them something to do in their free time?  Why is a MLS Academy and a non-MLS Academy any different?
> 
> If anyone needs to tell you more, that's an issue.


E-Genious is a well known, lying troll, pay no attention.


----------



## younothat (Jun 29, 2018)

texanincali said:


> First, let me say that I am not a fan of pay to play and wish it didn't exist.  However, people tend to use this as a crutch for what is wrong with soccer, but in reality, I don't think it is the problem.  I have been around this game for a long time, playing, coaching and as a parent.  I do not recall one situation I have been a part of in which a truly talented player was denied a chance to play on a team because they couldn't afford it.  There are so many things that we need to fix in our system just to make the US competitive on the world stage, but pay to play isn't at the top.
> 
> Ask yourselves these questions.  If we were to stop charging kids to play on top level teams, is there an immediate improvement?  The bottom line is that youth soccer and academies have to be funded.  In Europe, they are funded by people who purchase tickets to first team matches, buy concessions at first team matches and buy merchandise in the fan shop - the fans are the ones that are essentially "paying for the youth to play."
> 
> ...


We know many kids who have been denied a chance to play club sports;  parents that can't drive them around because they are working or don't even have transportation, can't afford to pay anytime beyond a nominal or registration fee.     AYSO and Latin League are bigger draws partly because they are affordable and local.  You would be surprised on how many players and parents don't even know  what US soccer is doing or even heard of the Ussda, ECNL, or the other "elite" leagues.

Yes if the top  levels teams had reduced fees or no fees there would be better competition even for roster spaces, when you have to earn a spot and continue to do so to say get playing time that brings out players and ups the competition level at least it has on the teams my kids have played for.

Getting rid of pay to play is not going to happen most likely but what we can do is go to merit based open system where players and teams earn the right to move on to the next level based on performances not politics or what you can afford to pay or not.   Promotion and Regulation is the way of the world, but in the US we want or demand entitlements instead.   Can't handle open competition or open markets, must protect something from somebody....

What is a club in the US anyway? a DBA franchise that charges customer's to wear a uniform?   In Eupore, SA, or Mexico clubs are much different and they focus on players not creating more franchise branches, tourneys, or what new league they can be part of.



Mystery Train said:


> Hawthorne didn't have Space X when this was his hood. Much rougher than it is now.  It's changed a lot in the past 10 years.  Thanks to SapceX and Amazon and that new Rams stadium, folks who bought homes there when it was gang territory in the 90's could sell and buy a mansion in most other states.


Not splitting hairs but Northrop and later  N/Grumman was there before Space x,  Hawthorne was as little rougher around the edges but it was never a slum or anything really rough,  been going to the Hawthorne airport since I was a kid so I have first hand knowledge.   I'm from LA and we called Compton or South Central rough in the 80's and 90's  but Hawthorne was a walk in the park in comparison.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

younothat said:


> We know many kids who have been denied a chance to play club sports;  parents that can't drive them around because they are working or don't even have transportation, can't afford to pay anytime beyond a nominal or registration fee.     AYSO and Latin League are bigger draws partly because they are affordable and local.  You would be surprised on how many players and parents don't even know  what US soccer is doing or even heard of the Ussda, ECNL, or the other "elite" leagues.
> 
> Yes if the top  levels teams had reduced fees or no fees there would be better competition even for roster spaces, when you have to earn a spot and continue to do so to say get playing time that brings out players and ups the competition level at least it has on the teams my kids have played for.
> 
> ...


Sounds to me like it is not the "rich white kids" that are demanding entitlements, anyone who doesn't want their kid to be involved in pay to play should probably go to a country that will fill their needs.
America isn't for everyone.


----------



## InTheValley (Jun 29, 2018)

timbuck said:


> Pay to play will probably always be around.  But why does it have to be so expensive?
> $250 nike/adidas uniforms?
> $650 EZ Ups
> $100 benches
> ...


Why does it have to be so expensive?  Because that’s the price of dope.  The market has determined the value of the items above, each of which is either perfectly priced or will soon become either unavailable or result in a new (typically higher) price.  If they don’t provide appropriate value to you, spend your money on a different product.


----------



## jpeter (Jun 29, 2018)

Sheriff Joe said:


> Sounds to me like it is not the "rich white kids" that are demanding entitlements, anyone who doesn't want their kid to be involved in pay to play should probably go to a country that will fill their needs.
> America isn't for everyone.


Opportunities for everyone is what the us is suppose to be about.  When you cost out a larger segment of the population the opportunity is lost for them.

Considering that ayso and local Latin leagues have many more players than clubs do in socal I guess the choices and opportunities have been made.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

jpeter said:


> Opportunities for everyone is what the us is suppose to be about.  When you cost out a larger segment of the population the opportunity is lost for them.
> 
> Considering that ayso and local Latin leagues have many more players than clubs do in socal I guess the choices and opportunities have been made.


Are you sure about that last part?


----------



## espola (Jun 29, 2018)

jpeter said:


> Opportunities for everyone is what the us is suppose to be about.  When you cost out a larger segment of the population the opportunity is lost for them.
> 
> Considering that ayso and local Latin leagues have many more players than clubs do in socal I guess the choices and opportunities have been made.


Direct personal action sometimes open windows.  My kids had a coach who for years paid his best forward out of his coaching fee, and the manager covered all his travel costs.  Later on a different team, one of the soccer dads, who was a semi-retired marketing consultant, brought in 2 kids from his son's high school out in the sticks.  We knew about one player before he moved out there, but the other was a true diamond in the rough.  Both became starters.  The dad worked out a fee-split deal with the club, where they essentially split one scholarship and he picked up the rest.


----------



## espola (Jun 29, 2018)

Sheriff Joe said:


> E-Genious is a well known, lying troll, pay no attention.


Anyone who wants to figure out which to believe can look at our posting records.

http://www.socalsoccer.com/search/8510515/

http://www.socalsoccer.com/search/8510525/


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

espola said:


> Anyone who wants to figure out which to believe can look at our posting records.
> 
> http://www.socalsoccer.com/search/8510515/
> 
> http://www.socalsoccer.com/search/8510525/


See what I mean?


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 29, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> The market has determined the value of the items above, each of which is either perfectly priced or will soon become either unavailable or result in a new (typically higher) price. If they don’t provide appropriate value to you, spend your money on a different product.





Sheriff Joe said:


> anyone who doesn't want their kid to be involved in pay to play should probably go to a country that will fill their needs.
> America isn't for everyone.


With all due respect, I think the "pay to play" criticism which most people are posting here is not a criticism of capitalism or of "rich" white people.  At least that's not where I'm coming from when I bash pay to play.  Don't conflate economic or societal ideology with criticism of the results that the system of youth soccer produces in the United States.  

For me it's not about a socialistic desire to provide "opportunity for everyone."  It's much more practical.  If you desire to see the US become a respected power in international soccer, it will require the expansion of the talent pool.  Often I hear criticism of US soccer along these lines:  How can under-developed, economically strapped country X with a population of just 50 million, produce so much more success on the pitch than a relatively wealthy country of 300 million with a collective obsession with youth sports?  The answer to me, lies in part that we don't pull from our full population.  We pull from the middle to upper classes because our system has evolved into a pay-to-play model that puts a premium on college recruitment.  That's not a model which will put our national teams on par with the European or South American powers.  Don't construe that as a slight against suburban white youth players.  It's just that without drawing from our entire population, and ESPECIALLY the minorities of the inner cities and the rural south (which are the talent gold mine for most American sports) we will always have limited results on the pitch.  The comments by MWN and others hi-liting the need for monetary compensation for clubs who develop youth players and for MLS to stop strangling the market by hoarding the transfer fees are really insightful.  Pay-to-play is fine for helping middle to upper class Americans who want to give their kid exposure to the game and enhance their chances at playing in college.  The market dictates the structure.  But that goal doesn't align with results in international competition.  

Now, if you think that aspiring for results at the international level for our national teams is a senseless goal to begin with, I can't necessarily argue with that.  Who cares?  But if we, as soccer fans, want to discuss what can be done to improve our chances in the World Cup, it would be silly to ignore the inherent weaknesses of our P2P youth structure.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> With all due respect, I think the "pay to play" criticism which most people are posting here is not a criticism of capitalism or of "rich" white people.  At least that's not where I'm coming from when I bash pay to play.  Don't conflate economic or societal ideology with criticism of the results that the system of youth soccer produces in the United States.
> 
> For me it's not about a socialistic desire to provide "opportunity for everyone."  It's much more practical.  If you desire to see the US become a respected power in international soccer, it will require the expansion of the talent pool.  Often I hear criticism of US soccer along these lines:  How can under-developed, economically strapped country X with a population of just 50 million, produce so much more success on the pitch than a relatively wealthy country of 300 million with a collective obsession with youth sports?  The answer to me, lies in part that we don't pull from our full population.  We pull from the middle to upper classes because our system has evolved into a pay-to-play model that puts a premium on college recruitment.  That's not a model which will put our national teams on par with the European or South American powers.  Don't construe that as a slight against suburban white youth players.  It's just that without drawing from our entire population, and ESPECIALLY the minorities of the inner cities and the rural south (which are the talent gold mine for most American sports) we will always have limited results on the pitch.  The comments by MWN and others hi-liting the need for monetary compensation for clubs who develop youth players and for MLS to stop strangling the market by hoarding the transfer fees are really insightful.  Pay-to-play is fine for helping middle to upper class Americans who want to give their kid exposure to the game and enhance their chances at playing in college.  The market dictates the structure.  But that goal doesn't align with results in international competition.
> 
> Now, if you think that aspiring for results at the international level for our national teams is a senseless goal to begin with, I can't necessarily argue with that.  Who cares?  But if we, as soccer fans, want to discuss what can be done to improve our chances in the World Cup, it would be silly to ignore the inherent weaknesses of our P2P youth structure.


To those poor countries soccer is probably the best way out of the poor house, but here we have so many different opportunities to choose from.
Lets not forget the dominance of the USWNT team in recent years, how do you explain that?
What percentage of those playing in the world cup would give it all up to come and live in the USA?
There are far more important things worry about other than our international soccer success.
We are 20 trillion in debt with a bullet, we have no idea who is in our country.


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 29, 2018)

Sheriff Joe said:


> To those poor countries soccer is probably the best way out of the poor house, but here we have so many different opportunities to choose from.


True.  And this is one reason US Soccer will never quite rise to the levels Brazil and Argentina experience.  And that's not a bad thing at all.


Sheriff Joe said:


> Lets not forget the dominance of the USWNT team in recent years, how do you explain that?


That one is easy.  Women enjoy a FAR, FAR, FAAAAAARRRR greater freedom and support system in America to pursue athletic glory.  Title 9 is just part of it, but the big thing is culture.  Women are strongly discouraged from playing sports in 99% of the rest of the world.  


Sheriff Joe said:


> There are far more important things worry about other than our international soccer success.


As I said, I can't argue that improving US national team performances are significant beyond the sport itself.  And I think "worry" is overstated here.  Still, success in economics, success in standards of living, success in peace, and success in reducing crime isn't mutually exclusive of success in sports.  This IS a soccer forum.  So we debate soccer.  This thread is specifically about US Soccer and how it performs.  To say "We have bigger issues than soccer" is irrelevant, and actually begs the question, "then why are you arguing on a soccer forum?"  


Sheriff Joe said:


> We are 20 trillion in debt with a bullet, we have no idea who is in our country.


As a rule, I leave these questions for the off-topic forum.  And I stay far, far away from that place!


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> True.  And this is one reason US Soccer will never quite rise to the levels Brazil and Argentina experience.  And that's not a bad thing at all.
> 
> That one is easy.  Women enjoy a FAR, FAR, FAAAAAARRRR greater freedom and support system in America to pursue athletic glory.  Title 9 is just part of it, but the big thing is culture.  Women are strongly discouraged from playing sports in 99% of the rest of the world.
> 
> ...


That's a good rule that I should follow, but if you think politics isn't part of international soccer you are way off.


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 29, 2018)

Sheriff Joe said:


> but if you think politics isn't part of international soccer you are way off.


Yeah, but that's a different kind of 'politics.'  The sleaze of American governmental politics has nothin' on _that _swamp.  

For the record, I view my interest in seeing the US succeed at soccer on an international stage comes from a deep patriotism.  I believe my country is the best, and things like the Olympics and World Cup are a great stage to show what a diverse country without limitations for their people can do _when they unite for a common purpose._


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Yeah, but that's a different kind of 'politics.'  The sleaze of American governmental politics has nothin' on _that _swamp.
> 
> For the record, I view my interest in seeing the US succeed at soccer on an international stage comes from a deep patriotism.  I believe my country is the best, and things like the Olympics and World Cup are a great stage to show what a diverse country without limitations for their people can do _when they unite for a common purpose._


I love watching US soccer no matter how they do, hopefully things will get better when your daughter in in goal on the National team.


----------



## timbuck (Jun 29, 2018)

I wonder if you had offered Messi, DeMaria, etc and their families the option to move to the US when their kids were 10 years old and set them up with lower/middle income lifestyle in the US vs taking the chance that their kids would be best in the world at soccer and staying in Argentia -  Would they have moved here?


----------



## Mystery Train (Jun 29, 2018)

Sheriff Joe said:


> I love watching US soccer no matter how they do, hopefully things will get better when your daughter in in goal on the National team.


I know for a fact my poor frayed GK dad nerves could not take that kind of pressure!!


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

timbuck said:


> I wonder if you had offered Messi, DeMaria, etc and their families the option to move to the US when their kids were 10 years old and set them up with lower/middle income lifestyle in the US vs taking the chance that their kids would be best in the world at soccer and staying in Argentia -  Would they have moved here?


I heard they took Messi away when he was 11 and hasn't lived there much since.
I would imagine they would have taken the sure thing.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Jun 29, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> I know for a fact my poor frayed GK dad nerves could not take that kind of pressure!!


I can't take it when my daughter has to take a pk  in club, let alone in college or a US team.


----------



## texanincali (Jun 29, 2018)

espola said:


> You said " I have heard rumors that there are some MLS clubs that will join the Crossfire, Sockers, Texans complaint/lawsuit, but haven’t seen any confirmation."  Why would the MLS clubs do that?


They would do that because they have invested a ton of money on developing youth, yet when they leave they are not compensated at all.  Have you heard of Weston McKennie?  

What am I missing?  Are you wumming?


----------



## Dr. Richard Hurtz (Jun 30, 2018)

Why did the mnt fail to qualify, and why does the USA continue to have trouble qualifying for world cups and Olympics, so why is it so hard for USA t o compete on the world stage??

The answer is simple...  it’s because we don’t field a good team. Basically,  we are not putting our best players on the pitch. 

We have good players. We have the talent. But when you choose the same old recycled players for the next qualifying match, the same old Omar Gonzales and the same Michael Bradley's and Jozy Alitodore’s; players who lose on a continuous basis then it becomes insanity. 

We have the youth in the pipeline..  they just need the opportunity. When the old farts at US soccer retire and younger more soccer I.Q. minded coaches come in.. they will Scout and field a more younger progressive mnt team. It will happen. 

Kickball is over.


----------



## Dr. Richard Hurtz (Jun 30, 2018)

Weston Mckennie was mentioned before. He’s a great example from Shalke


----------



## MyDaughtersAKeeper (Jul 1, 2018)

Mystery Train said:


> Yeah, but that's a different kind of 'politics.'  The sleaze of American governmental politics has nothin' on _that _swamp.
> 
> For the record, I view my interest in seeing the US succeed at soccer on an international stage comes from a deep patriotism.  I believe my country is the best, and things like the Olympics and World Cup are a great stage to show what a diverse country without limitations for their people can do _when they unite for a common purpose._


Who do you play for?


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jul 1, 2018)

Dr. Richard Hurtz said:


> Why did the mnt fail to qualify, and why does the USA continue to have trouble qualifying for world cups and Olympics, so why is it so hard for USA t o compete on the world stage??
> 
> The answer is simple...  it’s because we don’t field a good team. Basically,  we are not putting our best players on the pitch.
> 
> ...


It’s not. Watching Russia play kickball in the WC against Spain. And pack the back.


----------



## Mystery Train (Jul 1, 2018)

MyDaughtersAKeeper said:


> Who do you play for?


Damn.  That scene still gives me chills.


----------



## Dr. Richard Hurtz (Jul 1, 2018)

Spain’s fault too... Spain didn’t attack st all. They sat back and passed a thousand times. That doesn’t mean Russia is good.. and it certainly doesn’t mean Russia won cause you’re saying they played with their hearts unlike the USA. In my opinion Spain gave this game away. And certainly Russia wasn’t the better team either... it was just that, a non attacking game.


----------



## galaxydad (Jul 1, 2018)

Dr. Richard Hurtz said:


> Why did the mnt fail to qualify, and why does the USA continue to have trouble qualifying for world cups and Olympics, so why is it so hard for USA t o compete on the world stage??
> 
> The answer is simple...  it’s because we don’t field a good team. Basically,  we are not putting our best players on the pitch.
> 
> ...


Pay to play, a horrible system that discourages development,  a small good old boys network of people that don't want to work that hard and east coast bias are the biggest issues IMO.

Pay to play does keep many low-income players out of a system that is the main channel to both the national team, pros and college

The horrible system requires clubs to "flight" teams in June/early July without full knowledge of the players they will have on their rosters with an Aug 1st signing date. Then they are expected to develop players for an Aug/Sept- November league and results are expected- thus the dilemma. Do you add players for development in which you have little time to do so or to win so that you hopefully will get better players? thus, the rewarded coaches are the best recruiters, not the best at teaching the game.  

Club soccer/ DA and national teams are basically a small mafia- You have to know someone to get your players a look almost 100% of the time. After attending many national cups I've watched ODP scouts lazily saunter over to a game, watch a few minutes and then text on their phones. They have little trust in the coaches and rarely if ever speak to them about who to keep an eye on. I know of a coach who had several bench players get the call up to ODP as the "scout" saw a second 1/2 of a 10 zero blow out and invited the bench players for their single game of annihilation of a much inferior opponent. Good luck ever getting a shot at the national team camps unless your coach or club has an in and MOST don't- Not even those in DA academies. Socal kids invited to the national team camps are a majority- Galaxy, LAFC, and Slammers (on the boy's side)    

Finally,- East coast bias is real and KILLS our national team chances. There is no better soccer being played than in southern Ca period BUT a large majority of every men's national team at every age comes east of Texas. Ill take Socal over the entire east coast 90% of the time. Let me put together a top Socal team and I'll play the entire east coast and well kill it.


----------



## Dr. Richard Hurtz (Jul 1, 2018)

galaxydad said:


> Pay to play, a horrible system that discourages development,  a small good old boys network of people that don't want to work that hard and east coast bias are the biggest issues IMO.
> 
> Pay to play does keep many low-income players out of a system that is the main channel to both the national team, pros and college
> 
> ...


Holy shit!!!!  Well said!!!  I like this Galaxydad!!  I agree. Socal soccer beats everywhere else in the nation!!  I’ve seen it too!!!


----------



## LadiesMan217 (Jul 1, 2018)

galaxydad said:


> Pay to play, a horrible system that discourages development,  a small good old boys network of people that don't want to work that hard and east coast bias are the biggest issues IMO.
> 
> Pay to play does keep many low-income players out of a system that is the main channel to both the national team, pros and college
> 
> ...


Nice. On the Girls side the mafia is trying to get other clubs to go all-in ECNL from DA (LA Galaxy being one of them). I was literally on the grass rolling when I was hearing the conversations that were had and how much the coaches on the DA side wanted to knock out the mafia thug.


----------



## SOCCERMINION (Jul 1, 2018)

"IN THE US, THE RICH KIDS ARE NOT TOUGH ENOUGH AND THE POOR KIDS CANNOT AFFORD THE PROPER TRAINING" - ANONOMOUS.


----------



## SOCCERMINION (Jul 1, 2018)

SOCCERMINION said:


> "IN THE US, THE RICH KIDS ARE NOT TOUGH ENOUGH AND THE POOR KIDS CANNOT AFFORD THE PROPER TRAINING" - ANONOMOUS.


Why US is behind the rest of the world.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 1, 2018)

Here’s a thought I’ve had. While Spain v russia might be too soon to signal the death of the possession game, we’ve seen quite a few possession teams (spain, Argentina, Portugal) under perform and quite a few kickball teams over perform (Russia, Iran, Morocco).  Could it be that the non possession teams all really know how to play defense?  In the US qualifiers one of the things the Americans really struggled with was their defensive line. Could that be cultural too?  Here what position do all the really good kids want to play?  How much time do US coaches devote to defense versus shooting?  What are scholarships and mls salaries for defenders v strikers?  Now, granted all countries have an issue that the rock star wants to play up front. But Messi and Ronaldo have shown having that rock star isn’t enough.  And we in particular are an individualist nation that places a strong emphasis not only on winning but on individual achievement.  If this is even a little true than most of the reforms implemented or being thrown about right now won’t help.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jul 1, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> Here’s a thought I’ve had. While Spain v russia might be too soon to signal the death of the possession game, we’ve seen quite a few possession teams (spain, Argentina, Portugal) under perform and quite a few kickball teams over perform (Russia, Iran, Morocco).  Could it be that the non possession teams all really know how to play defense?  In the US qualifiers one of the things the Americans really struggled with was their defensive line. Could that be cultural too?  Here what position do all the really good kids want to play?  How much time do US coaches devote to defense versus shooting?  What are scholarships and mls salaries for defenders v strikers?  Now, granted all countries have an issue that the rock star wants to play up front. But Messi and Ronaldo have shown having that rock star isn’t enough.  And we in particular are an individualist nation that places a strong emphasis not only on winning but on individual achievement.  If this is even a little true than most of the reforms implemented or being thrown about right now won’t help.


With respect I find your thoughts and questions perplexing, but I will do my best to respond. Argentina and Portugal lost to teams that play a possession style in the round of 16. Yes, Spain lost, but to a team that going forward and in the future will not be able carry on in that manner. In fact Russia got beat by a possession team in Uruguay. Spain beat themselves by not being more aggressive early on and letting this game go to Pk's where anyone can win. And with some help without the VAR being called upon. In games leading up to the Spain vs Russia match VAR had been called upon for handballs in the box and the initial calls were overturned. How did Iran and Morocco over perform? They didn't. I can not say that Possession teams vs Non-possession teams play better defense. But any team that lines up 10 players behind the ball (like Russia and Iran) throughout the tourney will be quite hard to score on, especially if they don't try to connect passes anywhere from the backline to the midfield line. Russia's and Iran's approach was go long on everything. Side note- Russia's games leading up to the tourney were not the best of results they went 1-3-1. In regards to USMNT we do not have the quality of players or depth in the back. We have a few solid players, but were not always used and were replaced with familiar faces. Though were the wrong choices for sooo many reasons. I do like the interim USMNT coaches selections in the last few months. He's taking chances on youth. Time spent on shooting vs defense. Thats like, "...asking me how a watch works" (Sicario). The better salaries in the MLS go to marquee players, but goal scorers always make more whether they deserve it or not. Though there are some exceptions. For example Sergio Ramos does earn more than Karim Benzema. If your referring to college scholarships I would think are given based on need of the program or a must have player. Defenders are worth their weight in gold as much as prolific goal scorers.  Rock star, huh. I find Ronaldo and Messi to be polar opposites. Ronaldo seeks the spotlight and Messi does not (at least not in the manner of a rock star). There are many other contrasts I can make about each of these players but not necessary.


----------



## younothat (Jul 2, 2018)

SOCCERMINION said:


> Why US is behind the rest of the world.


1) US diverged from European style football with a rugby style game out of Canada that the Ivy league universities started to play, this eventually morphed into American Football and the game took off while "soccer"  did not
2) Ah so the golden age for US soccer was the 1920's  (3rd place in the WC in the 30's)
3) American Soccer always have had a weird structure;  US soccer federation was/is  dysfunctional or battling the league associations to appease FIFA
4) The depression 29+ caused many teams to fold due to financial reasons and the US entered a dark age of soccer
5) Short lived US leagues burned money and eventually flamed out while the rest of the world like South American and Europe built "sophisticated" league and stadiums
6) US women did well partly due to Title 9 effectiveness and because the development of the women game was well behind the men's game across the world.
7) Blame the things that smashed soccer in the US;  The soccer wars put USA on the sidelines for a half a century, while the global game grew and acquired fans, money, stadiums, etc
US is now trying to play catch up but there so far behind will may never catch up?

I dunno do all these things in the past really affect the future?  I would hope not and we can move forward but the status quo does need some changes.

Improved Coaching education,  open leagues,  promotion/regulation to enable real soccer pyramids,  pay to play changes,  building more soccer infrastructure,   USSF working together with high schools,  soccer associations to get along, share, and make soccer better for everybody without $$ being the priority is what I hope will be some of these changes.   That and the NCCA Men's college game needs to change to a 9-10 month program if these players  want to compete at a higher level or go pro.


----------



## outside! (Jul 2, 2018)

younothat said:


> 1) That and the NCCA Men's college game needs to change to a 9-10 month program if these players  want to compete at a higher level or go pro.


Since the women don't really matter.

The single most important thing that will help US Soccer is for it to increase in popularity. The women's game is essential for this.


----------



## MWN (Jul 2, 2018)

outside! said:


> Since the women don't really matter.
> 
> The single most important thing that will help US Soccer is for it to increase in popularity. The women's game is essential for this.


I agree that the popularity must increase.  I disagree that the woman's game is essential.  Here is why:

We have to understand that the US National Teams are their own beasts.  American's will watch the Stars and Stripes compete at the Olympics and World Cup because of national pride.  Put a "National" team in an International Competition and millions will tune in.  Example: more than twice the people watched the US Curling Team win Gold on late night Olympics coverage than watched the WPSL final in prime time coverage.  National teams draw.

Professional women's team sports are DOA (Basketball, hockey, soccer, etc.).  The American public at large has never supported professional athletes that don't represent the best of the best and the TV ratings and attendance numbers bear this out.  Individual women sports are moneymakers (tennis, golf).   That said, you will always get some support, but professional women's soccer is unsustainable as a business model.

While we need to continue to support and subsidize the WSPL as a means to provide training opportunities for the USWNT, its a money pit and always will be.

The only way soccer is going to grow in the US is for the professional level (MLS) to put out a much, much, much better product and for the USMNT to have success in various International competitions.  When the Galaxy or LAFC can beat Manchester City then Americans will watch.

The Federation is really stuck because the MLS structure will retard the growth of the sport for years to come and the USL is lucky Our best hope for the USMNT will be to send talent outside the US (Pulisic, Lederman, etc.) and let the real professionals develop American players.


----------



## outside! (Jul 2, 2018)

So you are saying it is acceptable to ignore slightly more than half of the potential future US Soccer fans? We can ignore the future mothers of the next generation of players (the ones who will be signing their children up for sports and driving them to practices)? Seems a bit myopic.

I believe that anything that is done for non-professional soccer in the United States should benefit both genders equally. If DA had rolled out GDA concurrently with DA (instead of violating California's Fair Play Act), there may have never been and ECNL and the resulting fight for the slice of the pie. All soccer in the US has benefited tremendously from the success of the WNT.


----------



## MWN (Jul 2, 2018)

outside! said:


> So you are saying it is acceptable to ignore slightly more than half of the potential future US Soccer fans? We can ignore the future mothers of the next generation of players (the ones who will be signing their children up for sports and driving them to practices)? Seems a bit myopic.
> 
> I believe that anything that is done for non-professional soccer in the United States should benefit both genders equally. If DA had rolled out GDA concurrently with DA (instead of violating California's Fair Play Act), there may have never been and ECNL and the resulting fight for the slice of the pie. All soccer in the US has benefited tremendously from the success of the WNT.


Not myopic.  Your logic is flawed.  My two points were somehow lost when you read my post.  Let me try to restate this.  

Point 1: Professional sports (MLS, NWSL/WPSL, NBA, WNBA, MLB, NFL, etc., etc.) are for-profit entertainment businesses.  These businesses fail when the entertainment value of their product is not embraced by the American public.  History has demonstrated that the American public does not financially support "sports entertainment" (e.g. soccer) unless those participating in the sport represent the best within the sport.  For this reason, historically speaking, in the U.S. there has never been a financially viable woman's "team sport" league because the public doesn't support women's sports as women's sports are viewed as not representative of the highest level of athletic ability in that sport.

Please note, the WNBA and WPSL have yet to turn a profit and both are heavily subsidized.  In the case of the WNBA, the NBA subsidizes it; and in the case of the NWSL and WPSL, the USSF, the Canadian Soccer Association (CSA) and the Mexican Football Federation (FMF) subsidize it by paying the National Team players additional monies and putting money towards the league.  In the case of the WNHL, you guessed it, the NHL subsidizes it.

The USSF's subsidizing of the NWSL and WPSL is smart because the USWNT, has a whole lot of players that play/train in the NWSL and thus, the ROI is there.

Where your logic goes off the rails is the belief that female viewership of a sport is somehow tied to the gender playing the sport.  It is not.  By your logic, the NFL would not be the most popular sport in America, followed behind Baseball and Basketball because women who represent half of the population are not represented by the NFL, NBA and MLB.  In fact, women represent nearly 45% of the NFL fanbase.  How on earth can this be since women do not participate in these sports in any appreciable numbers?  The reason is simple: gender is inconsequential when it comes to establishing fan bases for sports entertainment.

Point 2: 

The US "National Teams," whether men or women are supported by the America public because of national pride.  It is the mission of the USSF to advocate and attempt to grow "soccer" at the youth level, at the adult level and at the disabled/special needs level.  It is also the mission of the USSF to fund and field the National Teams.  It is not the mission of the USSF to run a professional soccer league, as doing so would invalidate its 501(c)(3) status.  

The USSF only brings in about $120M per year on average.  That isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme.  It pushes its youth affiliates (US Youth Soccer, US Club, AYSO, etc.) to move the ball in the youth world.  The fact the USSF even created the DA league was questionable.

But from a pure business point of view, the Men's World Cup is a 4.5 Billion dollar business (Revenue to FIFA) and that money is used to fund the Youth World Cups for both genders, whereas the Women's World Cup is a 100 Million dollar business.  

Nearly half of that 4.5 Billion is coming from women interested in the men's games.

Finally, the USSF serves all youth athletes, regardless of gender.  I agree that it should promote amateur participation in soccer by girls and boys equally.  However, I understand that beyond amateur participation in soccer by girls, there is no viable career path, except for a very small handful of female elite athletes that can make the 24 slots in the USWNT.

When it comes to college, male soccer players are discriminated against and female soccer players have more scholarship opportunities.  Do you think this is fair?  Should the men be treated equally as the women from just a pure scholarship standpoint?


----------



## Mystery Train (Jul 2, 2018)

I've consulted my tarot cards, a psychic medium, and my Magic 8 ball, and all signs point to 'yes" on a gender debate fully hijacking this thread in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .


----------



## jpeter (Jul 2, 2018)

outside! said:


> Since the women don't really matter.
> 
> The single most important thing that will help US Soccer is for it to increase in popularity. The women's game is essential for this.


Huh?  Women having been doing fine in the Olympics & World Cups.

Men not so much so there needs to more changes for those programs.

The one size fits all doesn't really work, & there is no way to really treat each program the same.  The college opportunities and WNT are fine according to our sophomore daughter & she would agree with our son that on the mens side you pretty much need to play overseas or Mexico to get enough training or experience to make it international or professionally.


----------



## outside! (Jul 2, 2018)

Oh, I understand now. You are one of the people that think the reason that male soccer players get fewer scholarships than female soccer players is due to Title IX. The real reason is the 85 full ride scholarships given to football and the old, male, football/basketball coach mafia that runs the NCAA. That explains why you fail to see the benefit of equally supporting both genders when it comes to non-professional soccer in the United States and how that will help grow the profitability of the MLS.

The best way to make more fans for the MLS is to increase the popularity of soccer. The best way to do that is have more people play the sport. Most kids that play the sport competitively for more than a few seasons become soccer fans. Many of their parents do as well.

I agree that the NCAA season should be longer, but it should be longer for both genders. All of your statistics ignore the still vast amount of historical inertia that has held back women's athletics. The US is far ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to encouraging our young women to participate in sports, but we still have a long way to go. Of course men are bigger and faster and stronger than women, but the amazing design of the game of soccer means that optically the women's game is still entertaining to watch. The final of the 2015 Women's World Cup was a much better game to watch than yesterday's Spain/Russia game.


----------



## MWN (Jul 2, 2018)

outside! said:


> Oh, I understand now. You are one of the people that think the reason that male soccer players get fewer scholarships than female soccer players is due to Title IX. The real reason is the 85 full ride scholarships given to football and the old, male, football/basketball coach mafia that runs the NCAA. That explains why you fail to see the benefit of equally supporting both genders when it comes to non-professional soccer in the United States and how that will help grow the profitability of the MLS.
> 
> The best way to make more fans for the MLS is to increase the popularity of soccer. The best way to do that is have more people play the sport. Most kids that play the sport competitively for more than a few seasons become soccer fans. Many of their parents do as well.
> 
> I agree that the NCAA season should be longer, but it should be longer for both genders. All of your statistics ignore the still vast amount of historical inertia that has held back women's athletics. The US is far ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to encouraging our young women to participate in sports, but we still have a long way to go. Of course men are bigger and faster and stronger than women, but the amazing design of the game of soccer means that optically the women's game is still entertaining to watch. The final of the 2015 Women's World Cup was a much better game to watch than yesterday's Spain/Russia game.


Fundamentally, I agree that the more kids play soccer, the more fans we ultimately will get.  I also agree that the better the WNT and MNT do in the World Cup and Olympics the more popular the sport will get.

I do believe that the NCAA should treat the various sports for each gender equally and the total number of athletic scholarships should be balanced.  Now, this means that if a schools is going to offer Football (M), Soccer (M&W), Basketball (M&W), then it needs to balance the athletic scholarships through other sports Golf (W), Field Hockey (W), etc., to make up for the imbalance.  Having 9.9 scholarships available for men v. 14 for women ultimately harms the goal of increasing popularity.

When it comes to watching soccer games, I'll confess, I do not watch the MLS.  I can't watch it for more than 10 minutes because the level of play is horrible.  I'll watch the Premiere league, and other European first division leagues, but the MLS with its low quality of play is just painful.  Its double when I attempt to watch college soccer (men or women) or WPSL/NWSL.  I will tune into every US WNT and MNT game I can ... because 'MERICA.

Ultimately, I believe the reason that domestic viewership of the NWSL was 93k, the MLS was 260k per game domestically and 450k for Premiere League games on NBC is that soccer fans don't watch poor quality soccer, unless its the National Team.  This has nothing to do with history, just the fact that sports is entertainment the public will always gravitate towards the highest examples of that sport for entertainment.  Thus, you can invest all you want in women's amateur and professional soccer, the ROI will never come close to investing those same dollars in the men's game because the public won't watch/support (including women).


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 3, 2018)

Those who want to impose promotion & relegation (P/R) at the youth level don’t understand we already have the most perfect possible system of P/R. It’s called capitalism. When clubs aren’t consistently competitive in DA/GDA/ECNL, they get relegated and replaced by other clubs that are likely to be more successful.  

What they want, instead, is forced, annual P/R at a team level, which would only cause instability to the point that it would destroy elite comp soccer and turn it into daddy ball. Seriously, this is such a dumb idea I wish people would stop talking about it.  By way of example, let’s say Legends’ U16/17 GDA team has a couple bad injuries and gets relegated. What happens?  First, the entire team leaves for other GDA/ECNL teams that will get them college exposure they will no longer receive at Legends. Second, coaches get laid off because the revenue for an entire team just vaporized. Third, players in other age groups start leaving because the coach who got laid off also coached their team, so now you have more lost revenue. Fourth, Legends can’t find a solid replacement because coaches realize that youth soccer is a bad industry when your career and primary source of income to feed your family literally depends every year on whether a 15 year old girl blows out her knee, or players get the flu on the wrong day. This new job instability causes pretty much every decent coach with half a brain to leave the business. Ultimately, Legends goes down. Congratulations, you just killed off a stable, successful club so that AYSO all stars of Fresno could have a shot in GDA. Over the next couple years, pretty much all stable clubs go down simply because one of their teams crashes out of DA, GDA or ECNL. Professional coaches are replaced by daddy ball because only them (and child molesters) find sufficient  value coaching youth soccer. 

It gets worse. Now that it’s in GDA, AYSO of Fresno's player costs just went from $150 to $10,000 annually to pay for all the tournaments, travel and field costs. Because the parents can’t afford it and aren’t sufficiently committed, the team folds after the first of 4 expensive trips. In the end, it doesn’t matter because the remaining GDA teams in SoCal also quit because they aren’t paying $10,000 to play the likes of AYSO Fresno. The entire GDA collapses.  The same thing happens to ECNL and DA. Congrats, you have now killed off every elite youth league in the country. 

It gets still worse. This new era of P/R causes all the remaining clubs to fight for their existence by abandoning long-term development to focus solely on winning tomorrow’s game lest they run the risk of Legends’ fate. Every 14 year old boy in America who hasn’t  gone through puberty yet is kicked off the team or quits from lack of playing time because they aren’t big or fast enough yet to win the games needed to stay in DA and continue that revenue stream.  In the end, everyone gets worse at soccer as all the good coaches find something else to do, and no one even tries to develop players long term, because that’s just suicide. Players quit left and right because they’re tired of either having to bounce from club to club, or having their teammates and friends constantly replaced by players from relegated teams. MLS team abandon DA because, really, what’s the point? Money drains out of youth soccer. 

Ultimately, those arguing for team P/R 
just want their kid to play at the highest level, with the best coaches, against the best competition, on the nicest fields, at the best tournaments, without having to pay for it or doing any of the heavy lifting to make the league successful. But in the end, you always get what you pay for.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 3, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> Those who want to impose promotion & relegation (P/R) at the youth level don’t understand we already have the most perfect possible system of P/R. It’s called capitalism. When clubs aren’t consistently competitive in DA/GDA/ECNL, they get relegated and replaced by other clubs that are likely to be more successful.
> 
> What they want, instead, is forced, annual P/R at a team level, which would only cause instability to the point that it would destroy elite comp soccer and turn it into daddy ball. Seriously, this is such a dumb idea I wish people would stop talking about it.  By way of example, let’s say Legends’ U16/17 GDA team has a couple bad injuries and gets relegated. What happens?  First, the entire team leaves for other GDA/ECNL teams that will get them college exposure they will no longer receive at Legends. Second, coaches get laid off because the revenue for an entire team just vaporized. Third, players in other age groups start leaving because the coach who got laid off also coached their team, so now you have more lost revenue. Fourth, Legends can’t find a solid replacement because coaches realize that youth soccer is a bad industry when your career and primary source of income to feed your family literally depends every year on whether a 15 year old girl blows out her knee, or players get the flu on the wrong day. This new job instability causes pretty much every decent coach with half a brain to leave the business. Ultimately, Legends goes down. Congratulations, you just killed off a stable, successful club so that AYSO all stars of Fresno could have a shot in GDA. Over the next couple years, pretty much all stable clubs go down simply because one of their teams crashes out of DA, GDA or ECNL. Professional coaches are replaced by daddy ball because only them (and child molesters) find sufficient  value coaching youth soccer.
> 
> ...


What?

Capitalism for non profits is oxymoronic but no DA clubs in the southwest have ever been relegated in 10+ yrs yet no matter there competitiveness, the same bottom of the bracket teams are going through year after year.

Earning what you get is a capitalist concept that goes along with promotion & regulation so funny that you  bring that up. 

Open up the leagues, create a real reachable soccer pyramid, and promote clubs that perform on the field. The establishment is not getting it done so let's change, regulation & promotion is one tool to get that done.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 3, 2018)

jpeter said:


> What?
> 
> Capitalism for non profits is oxymoronic but no DA clubs in the southwest have ever been relegated in 10+ yrs yet no matter there competitiveness, the same bottom of the bracket teams are going through year after year.
> 
> ...


You really are dense, aren’t you?  In the right context (youth soccer club being one of them), a non-profit can be the best possible legal form in which to maximize income.  This is probably beyond your ability to comprehend, so I’ll dispense with the details other than to say that non-profits can essentially push profit in the form of coaching fees to the same dudes who run the show, and without having to worry about the government taking a big chunk of it. They also avoid employment taxes on the back end when they label the comp as coaching fees rather than wages.  And the real beauty is they can use unpaid volunteers to do most of the work that would otherwise need to paid for.  In reality, a non-profit can be almost the purest form of capitalism because things like taxes, minimum wage obligations and workers comp don’t get in the way of doing what you want with your revenue.  At Blues, the coaching fees those guys pay themselves exceed $600,000 a year.  Slammers pays about $1.5 million in coaching fees.  You’re even dumber than than you write if you think people aren’t making boatloads of money through non-profits.  Just ask Kenneth Copeland.

It’s easy to make up crazy theories that have no basis in reality when you have no concept of business administration or even basic economics, and you think that people will just throw millions of dollars away just so others can freeload off of their money and hard work.  You may as well propose that we stop making the laws of gravity apply to our players.  You and the others who think promotion/relegation is a solution are the real reason men’s soccer sucks in the US. There are just too many dumb people involved in the sport.


----------



## coachsamy (Jul 3, 2018)

It doesn't matter what happens things won't change. But there is hope within the current system with some minor tweaks that won't need the approval nor the endorsement of the tools from USSF.

1. We have our world class teenager in Pulisic and there are some solid youth players coming up. He needs to be surrounded by some solid players that actually care playing for Merica! You know those that get major goosebumps when songs like God Bless the USA, Party in the USA, Stars Spangled Banner, etc. (No more Julian Greens!)

2. Clubs Directors work together to create a better local gaming circuit. Once upon a time CSL Premier was the league and now is well just another league. SCDSL had no business coming in, SDDA was a kneejerk to SCDSL and Surf exodus. So if Directors are serious about development towards a common goal of having a great national team, they should work together, stop the poaching and depleting clubs for some quick $$$. Monopolies are not good for long term quality competition. Better quality LOCAL gaming has a better pool of players available for DA, College, etc.

3.  Clubs need to hire Team Managers no more Parents at this position! These managers since it would be a greater expense if given to a team individually, have this managers manage an entire age group or 2. These Managers would be the ones ensuring the kids are properly place in the team they belong. This would actually break off the cronism and bullshit going on during tryouts in which the team manager has teams preselected.

4. People start casually going to MLS games or Xolos games or whatever other live soccer game you could catch. Parents will see first hand how good their kid really is(or not), and kids will learn a thing or 2 from the actual pros.

5. Gaming League Directors stop seeding teams blindly! Run round robin qualifiers for your top 2 brackets at age group taking the best team or 2 from each participating club the first 2-3 weeks after the roster freeze. This is not about P/R, but about finding a balance in the brackets. Not only the entire league will benefit, but it would be a fun environment in which league games would be fun to watch week in and week out. 

6. 2002 Quarterfinals was about RunDMB, Eddie Johnson and the great Landon Donovan playing for the love of the red, white and blue, lets recreate that back for 2022 and beyond!


----------



## jpeter (Jul 3, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> You really are dense, aren’t you?  In the right context (youth soccer club being one of them), a non-profit can be the best possible legal form in which to maximize income.  This is probably beyond your ability to comprehend, so I’ll dispense with the details other than to say that non-profits can essentially push profit in the form of coaching fees to the same dudes who run the show, and without having to worry about the government taking a big chunk of it. They also avoid employment taxes on the back end when they label the comp as coaching fees rather than wages.  And the real beauty is they can use unpaid volunteers to do most of the work that would otherwise need to paid for.  In reality, a non-profit can be almost the purest form of capitalism because things like taxes, minimum wage obligations and workers comp don’t get in the way of doing what you want with your revenue.  At Blues, the coaching fees those guys pay themselves exceed $600,000 a year.  Slammers pays about $1.5 million in coaching fees.  You’re even dumber than than you write if you think people aren’t making boatloads of money through non-profits.  Just ask Kenneth Copeland.
> 
> It’s easy to make up crazy theories that have no basis in reality when you have no concept of business administration or even basic economics, and you think that people will just throw millions of dollars away just so others can freeload off of their money and hard work.  You may as well propose that we stop making the laws of gravity apply to our players.  You and the others who think promotion/relegation is a solution are the real reason men’s soccer sucks in the US. There are just too many dumb people involved in the sport.


You're fluent in lies, excuses and bullshit but reality is promotion / regulation has been working just fine for youth soccer for a while now.

Coast soccer (CSL) has been doing it for many years, in my son's age group the premier teams won national cup, npl, crl and are going for national champions playing for clubs (TFA, Oxnard, Santa Barbara) without the so called millions.

Get real you're trying to protect your bubble and are afraid of real competition, you want to take the easy way out and play in closed leagues, where the main admission requirement is what you pay.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 5, 2018)

jpeter said:


> You're fluent in lies, excuses and bullshit but reality is promotion / regulation has been working just fine for youth soccer for a while now.
> 
> Coast soccer (CSL) has been doing it for many years, in my son's age group the premier teams won national cup, npl, crl and are going for national champions playing for clubs (TFA, Oxnard, Santa Barbara) without the so called millions.
> 
> Get real you're trying to protect your bubble and are afraid of real competition, you want to take the easy way out and play in closed leagues, where the main admission requirement is what you pay.


Your logic is truly frightening.  You must be an anti-vaxer and climate change denier too.

Let me get your “logic” straight: you believe P/R is a key to producing great youth soccer players.  You also believe CSL has used P/R with great success for many years. Therefore, CSL must be producing all the best players who are signing at Power 5 schools or pro contracts, right?  

My god, man, CSL is definitive proof why P/R is the dumbest possible solution for producing great soccer players - *because it doesn’t produce any great soccer players!  *You’re essentially arguing that Venezuela is proof that socialism works.

If you think I’m the one afraid of competition, why is it that your kid is the one still wearing floaties in the CSL kiddie pool?  DA is fully funded at most clubs, so what are you waiting for?  You can’t even use unemployment as an excuse Karl Marx.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 5, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> Your logic is truly frightening.  You must be an anti-vaxer and climate change denier too.
> 
> Let me get your “logic” straight: you believe P/R is a key to producing great youth soccer players.  You also believe CSL has used P/R with great success for many years. Therefore, CSL must be producing all the best players who are signing at Power 5 schools or pro contracts, right?
> 
> ...


Cal South has CRL where you earn you way in, National league Pacific conference,  and there are others that goto national champions with us club but yeah there all using qualifications and promotions to get better competition. If you don't finish high enough you don't get invited back pretty simple concept unless you go through play in or other qualifications.

DA would be well served to do the same: every season top 4-5 promoted, let's the rest qualify and include outside comp.  Top 12-14 in each age group starting say U14. 

Yes having a son play for a MLS academy is nice but when there always trying to find better comp since only about a dozen games are so where close over the 30 development can be hit & miss.

The rest of the stuff you wrote is in your head or something?


----------



## Zdrone (Jul 5, 2018)




----------



## MWN (Jul 5, 2018)

jpeter said:


> Cal South has CRL where you earn you way in, National league Pacific conference,  and there are others that goto national champions with us club but yeah there all using qualifications and promotions to get better competition. If you don't finish high enough you don't get invited back pretty simple concept unless you go through play in or other qualifications.
> 
> DA would be well served to do the same: every season top 4-5 promoted, let's the rest qualify and include outside comp.  Top 12-14 in each age group starting say U14.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with @InTheValley's economic analysis.  Taking a step back, the problem with P/R is that it violates the basic premise of the DA, which is placing "development" of players over win/losses. 

After years of floundering around and analysis (Double Pass) the Federation has come to the conclusion that at the Youth level, we are placing waaaaaay too much importance on trophies.  The drive to win, win, win, is causing development of players to be retarded.  We all know that a winning strategy can be to play over the top and let your super-speedy forwards score a few.  Screw possession, drop a few over the back line and play the percentages.  It works really well at the youth level and does alright at the professional level too.  But is this developing elite soccer players?  No.

Wins are nice, provided those wins don't retard development of players.  So the Academy has established a few principals:

All FT players start at least 25% of the league games.  The Development Academy has explicitly mandated game time for players, even if this means a DA team is at a competitive disadvantage.
Teams are encouraged to have youngers play up, even if that means that "younger's" team is put at a disadvantage.
Fewer games ... because its development and not competition we are seeking.
Follow international standards for games (i.e. limited substitutions).  By forcing 25% of the players to start, we drive fitness, even for the bench players.
Practices 4 times a week with A/B licensed coaches.
P/R at the Academy level would violated the principals of development because teams/coaches would be motivated to win at all costs.  The Development Academy doesn't care about how "teams" do, it cares solely about identifying the unicorns, the super-elite players that are Youth National Team candidates and hopefully candidates to go pro and skip college (a wasteland for development).

From a practical standpoint, P/R would not work for 2 big reasons:

There is no monetary incentives in the DA.  We don't reward youth clubs for developing talent through training/solidarity compensation.  Clubs that support the DA are doing so purely for marketing reasons in order to suck dollars into their lower tier teams.
Coaching licensing is tough.  Many clubs don't want to undertake the B.S., dollars and length of time it takes to get a "B" license, let alone an "A" license.  If you were to drop teams/clubs, you could easily find yourself in a position that there are no qualified teams ready to step up.  Moreover, some highly qualified teams would be faced with economic ruin because they couldn't take on the travel requirements.  Socioeconomic realities are such that those parents from Oxnard are not financially prepared to pay 4k/year to play in the DA.
P/R worked for CRL when it was the only game in town.  It worked until it didn't.  Clubs got pissed at the rigidity and left, forming the SCDSL.  The SCDSL has become the better league for girls, whereas the CRL reigns for boys. Bottom line, P/R at the DA level would be a disaster and violate the basic tenants of the league, which was formed because leagues like the CRL promote wins/losses over development.


----------



## espola (Jul 5, 2018)

jpeter said:


> Cal South has CRL where you earn you way in, National league Pacific conference,  and there are others that goto national champions with us club but yeah there all using qualifications and promotions to get better competition. If you don't finish high enough you don't get invited back pretty simple concept unless you go through play in or other qualifications.
> 
> DA would be well served to do the same: every season top 4-5 promoted, let's the rest qualify and include outside comp.  Top 12-14 in each age group starting say U14.
> 
> ...


For that to work you would have to find clubs (or teams or players or parents) that want to be promoted so that they will have to put up with the DA nonsense.


----------



## espola (Jul 5, 2018)

I don't know but I have been told that freshly-demoted teams lose all their best players to freshly-promoted teams.


----------



## younothat (Jul 5, 2018)

MWN said:


> I tend to agree with @InTheValley's economic analysis.  Taking a step back, the problem with P/R is that it violates the basic premise of the DA, which is placing "development" of players over win/losses.
> 
> After years of floundering around and analysis (Double Pass) the Federation has come to the conclusion that at the Youth level, we are placing waaaaaay too much importance on trophies.  The drive to win, win, win, is causing development of players to be retarded.  We all know that a winning strategy can be to play over the top and let your super-speedy forwards score a few.  Screw possession, drop a few over the back line and play the percentages.  It works really well at the youth level and does alright at the professional level too.  But is this developing elite soccer players?  No.
> 
> ...


I'm going to disagree, P/R would be prefect for the DA starting at certain ages.

Development over wins in the DA is mostly a myth anyway, in practice with 3-5 subs the starters are getting most of the play time and almost every body plays to win all the time anyway, the catch phases charade doesn't mean anything  
Procession and 4-3-3 is not making much of a difference, many teams in DA still don't play procession and when the SW DA teams get to higher  level or international tournaments the have not been doing all the well.  Almost every coach will tell you they don't get enough high level games during the normal season and it shows.

Winning doesn't have to retard anybodies development, the 25% league start thing is a loose rule so those types of players wait to get starts until the comp drops and they don't start vs the better teams. 
Playing up is the same, no changes, the national team player candidates are basically required to play anyway so if your good enough doesn't matter and your talking about very few players either way. 
Number of games doesn't change;  USSDA keeps all the stats anyway starting at U15 so draw the line each year; those that don't perform don't return.

Let the market decide who can afford what, Oxnard played CSL, CRL, Surf Cup,  NPL, etc so they spent that much or likely more anyway in 4 different leagues  

P/R works for  CSL, CRL, National League, some of the USclub leagues so it can work for DA.   Heck even SCDSL had made a attempt on a in house P/R with there tiers in the different flight and those that want only "discovery" can play in those brackets.

Double pass was another expensive eval, I haven't noticed any difference or very little change after the classified report(s) came out.

No current youth league in the US including DA is really good enough  after a certain age,  U16,+ players need to be training with U18+ or USL pro players if they have hopes of making it pro or internationally.   The DA is not competitive enough across the board at u15+ either past the top teams,  keeping the same established clubs and teams, year after year no matter there performances or not is not helping.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 5, 2018)

High School sports even have promotion/ regulation.   1-4 division you more up or down depending on performances.  I'm a parent so I don't have any other incentive other than helping my players finding the best training & competition around.  

High school has more players than any leagues yet ussf & ussda shunnes them instead of including or incorporating them in their programs, this is a big mistake and they should be working together.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 5, 2018)

younothat said:


> I'm going to disagree, P/R would be prefect for the DA starting at certain ages.
> 
> Development over wins in the DA is mostly a myth anyway, in practice with 3-5 subs the starters are getting most of the play time and almost every body plays to win all the time anyway, the catch phases charade doesn't mean anything
> Procession and 4-3-3 is not making much of a difference, many teams in DA still don't play procession and when the SW DA teams get to higher  level or international tournaments the have not been doing all the well.  Almost every coach will tell you they don't get enough high level games during the normal season and it shows.
> ...


The mandated/suggested 4-3-3 is a bit silly to me.  Yes-  good to have a base. But 4-3-3 always playing against 4-3-3 causes a team to act/think the same way all game. 
Why not let a team try to figure out how to break down a 4-4-2 or 3-4-3?  Or how to defend against different attacking formations.


----------



## mahrez (Jul 5, 2018)

younothat said:


> I'm going to disagree, P/R would be prefect for the DA starting at certain ages.
> 
> Development over wins in the DA is mostly a myth anyway, in practice with 3-5 subs the starters are getting most of the play time and almost every body plays to win all the time anyway, the catch phases charade doesn't mean anything
> Procession and 4-3-3 is not making much of a difference, many teams in DA still don't play procession and when the SW DA teams get to higher  level or international tournaments the have not been doing all the well.  Almost every coach will tell you they don't get enough high level games during the normal season and it shows.
> ...


Us soccer has known about the competitive balance problems in the DA for some time.  Finally they decided to act with this new structure

http://www.ussoccerda.com/20180619-NEWS-DA-To-Introduce-New-Competition-Structure-for-2018-19-Season

Step in the right direction? Lots of  verbiage but few details?

Showcase matchup formulas ( like records) to adjust schedules or based on last year's records until x number of games.   Not pro/rel but at least da is acknowledging the problem and trying to do something about it.


----------



## espola (Jul 5, 2018)

mahrez said:


> Us soccer has known about the competitive balance problems in the DA for some time.  Finally they decided to act with this new structure
> 
> http://www.ussoccerda.com/20180619-NEWS-DA-To-Introduce-New-Competition-Structure-for-2018-19-Season
> 
> ...


They're acknowledging that it's not about "development".


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 5, 2018)

jpeter said:


> High School sports even have promotion/ regulation.   1-4 division you more up or down depending on performances.  I'm a parent so I don't have any other incentive other than helping my players finding the best training & competition around.
> 
> High school has more players than any leagues yet ussf & ussda shunnes them instead of including or incorporating them in their programs, this is a big mistake and they should be working together.


Ok, now you’re being too obvious that you’re punking us. Seriously, your theories were suspect enough when you were just saying that US soccer should model a system after CSL, which can’t produce any players good enough to play beyond the age of 18, except for a handful of kids who were able to save a few bucks on tuition at d3 directional and/or evangelical colleges.

But that stuff about HS, well, you’ve just gone too far.  I mean, you’re going to lose credibility with even your most brain dead believers if you’re going to argue that more emphasis on HS soccer will help turn the US into a soccer power. 

Seriously, Neymar was being paid about $35k a month by the time he was 16.  Mbappé was already playing at Monaco.  Messi was playing for freakin’ Barcelona when he was 16.   Ronaldo dropped out of school completely when he was 14 and was at Sporting Lisbon when he was 16.  Even the late blooming Harry Kane was a professional soccer player by the time he was 16.  You think spending 3 months a year playing HS soccer will put US players on the same level as guys who are already spending all of their time playing soccer, getting the best training possible, and playing with and against some of the best pros in the world?  That is really funny.  Shoot, you can’t even go to HS, let alone waste your time playing HS, if you want to have a real shot at being the type of player who can actually make a difference on an international level.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 5, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> Ok, now you’re being too obvious that you’re punking us. Seriously, your theories were suspect enough when you were just saying that US soccer should model a system after CSL, which can’t produce any players good enough to play beyond the age of 18, except for a handful of kids who were able to save a few bucks on tuition at d3 directional and/or evangelical colleges.
> 
> But that stuff about HS, well, you’ve just gone too far.  I mean, you’re going to lose credibility with even your most brain dead believers if you’re going to argue that more emphasis on HS soccer will help turn the US into a soccer power.
> 
> Seriously, Neymar was being paid about $35k a month by the time he was 16.  Mbappé was already playing at Monaco.  Messi was playing for freakin’ Barcelona when he was 16.   Ronaldo dropped out of school completely when he was 14 and was at Sporting Lisbon when he was 16.  Even the late blooming Harry Kane was a professional soccer player by the time he was 16.  You think spending 3 months a year playing HS soccer will put US players on the same level as guys who are already spending all of their time playing soccer, getting the best training possible, and playing with and against some of the best pros in the world?  That is really funny.  Shoot, you can’t even go to HS, let alone waste your time playing HS, if you want to have a real shot at being the type of player who can actually make a difference on an international level.


You have a very strange way of accepting anybody else view point.

The is the USA not Eupore so High School sports has it's place.

There are no DA or any other youth players on us youth teams  who compare to those foreign players.  Not even close and that's a problem so why in the world would you want to continue with the status quo?

Tell you what come up with one orginal idea in how to improve youth soccer in the usa and we can continue.


----------



## MWN (Jul 5, 2018)

jpeter said:


> High school has more players than any leagues yet ussf & ussda shunnes them instead of including or incorporating them in their programs, this is a big mistake and they should be working together.


The USSF does not "shun them."  The National Federation of High Schools (http://www.nfhs.org/), controls ALL HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS.  Soccer, Football, Hockey, Field Hockey, Wrestling, and Competitive Tiddly-Winks ARE ALL subject to the 100% oversight and control of the NFHS.

Let me restate this.  If its a sport in High School then the NFHS is in FULL FREAKING CONTROL OF EVERYTHING.  High School football... USA Football?  Nope, NFHS.  High School Baseball?  USA Baseball?  Nope, NFHS.  Soccer?  U.S. Soccer Federation?  NOPE, NFHS.

Please for the love of all things semi-intelligent.  High School Soccer is regulated, controlled, dictated and directed by the NFHS that works (here in California with the CIF) various state associations the are all HIGH SCHOOL associations.

Just so you all are clear ... the NCAA and soccer at the college level has nothing to do with the US Soccer Federation.  High School and College Soccer have EXPRESSLY exempted themselves from any ADVICE, ASSISTANCE, CONTROL, or other suggestions of the US Soccer Federation.

Why is this so hard?

@jpeter, what exactly would you propose that the USSF do?  Sue and do a takeover of the NFHS?


----------



## espola (Jul 5, 2018)

MWN said:


> The USSF does not "shun them."  The National Federation of High Schools (http://www.nfhs.org/), controls ALL HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS.  Soccer, Football, Hockey, Field Hockey, Wrestling, and Competitive Tiddly-Winks ARE ALL subject to the 100% oversight and control of the NFHS.
> 
> Let me restate this.  If its a sport in High School then the NFHS is in FULL FREAKING CONTROL OF EVERYTHING.  High School football... USA Football?  Nope, NFHS.  High School Baseball?  USA Baseball?  Nope, NFHS.  Soccer?  U.S. Soccer Federation?  NOPE, NFHS.
> 
> ...


I think you missed the point.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 5, 2018)

MWN said:


> The USSF does not "shun them."  The National Federation of High Schools (http://www.nfhs.org/), controls ALL HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS.  Soccer, Football, Hockey, Field Hockey, Wrestling, and Competitive Tiddly-Winks ARE ALL subject to the 100% oversight and control of the NFHS.
> 
> Let me restate this.  If its a sport in High School then the NFHS is in FULL FREAKING CONTROL OF EVERYTHING.  High School football... USA Football?  Nope, NFHS.  High School Baseball?  USA Baseball?  Nope, NFHS.  Soccer?  U.S. Soccer Federation?  NOPE, NFHS.
> 
> ...


Thank you for providing a text book example of shun...persistently avoid, ignore, or reject something or somebody.

Ussf could start by repairing the relationships:  with the da winter break & new structure posted they is room in the schedule for high school play, allow that again and one of top drawbacks of da is mitigated, a good start & will.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 6, 2018)

jpeter said:


> You have a very strange way of accepting anybody else view point.
> 
> The is the USA not Eupore so High School sports has it's place.
> 
> ...


I agree with many points of view.  Just not ones that are really, really dumb.

If you want an original idea, I’ll give you one: relax.  The US is doing about as well as possible with its current youth systems given the country’s geography and cultural, societal and educational demographics.  There’s absolutely nothing that can be done at a macro level to substantially improve soccer here, unless we make structural changes to society that would make the US a worse place to live and which are unrealistic anyway.  Or maybe Bill Gates decides youth soccer is more important than clean water in Africa.

If you can’t make your own kid into a soccer phenom, the best you can do is hope that a core group of sufficiently young kids, all around the same age, end up at a place like IMG Academy at the same time, and who all have immense athletic ability, innate skill and burning desire.  These kids will need to be so immensely gifted by the time they’re 17 that a pro soccer future presents a better financial decision than a $200,000 full ride to Stanford plus the millions they could make with the degree, or they’re so dumb that a free meaningful college education is out of play. There are maybe 10 Americans who make at least a million a year playing soccer, and 4-5 in US history for whom signing a pro contract at 17-18 made more sense than free college.  Ultimately, the only thing likely to cause this sufficient core of talent to exist is sheer luck and/or enough dumb or desperate parents who do not value higher, or even primary, education for their kids.  In the meantime, enjoy the WNT and all the other sports at which the US excels. There are plenty to choose from.

I’ll leave the discussion of solidarity payments for another day, but they probably wouldn’t help either even if they were legal, which they probably aren’t.  In fact, solidarity payments could cause significant harm to youth soccer.  But at least that’s debatable.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2018)

MWN said:


> I do believe that the NCAA should treat the various sports for each gender equally and the total number of athletic scholarships should be balanced.  Now, this means that if a schools is going to offer Football (M), Soccer (M&W), Basketball (M&W), then it needs to balance the athletic scholarships through other sports Golf (W), Field Hockey (W), etc., to make up for the imbalance.  Having 9.9 scholarships available for men v. 14 for women ultimately harms the goal of increasing popularity.


I am not sure where your numbers for scholarships come from or what is included in those numbers but based on the rules of Title IX as noted below, you cannot look at one total scholarship offering number because there are so many variables that go into that total number (i.e. proportion of women and men enrolled at a given college and the interests for a given area). Currently 56% of college attendees are women and certain colleges offer more scholarships in total than other colleges which would provide more disparity when looking at college scholarships in total. 

"*The first compliance prong of Title IX *deals with overall sport and athletic participation offerings available for men and women. A three-part test for participation opportunities determines if institutions provide female and male students with equal athletic opportunities.


*Proportionality:* That’s a big phrase and a chance for you to use a little math. The first test means to compare the ratio of female to male participants in the athletic program with the ratio of female to male full-time students (undergraduates for intercollegiate investigations). If the resulting ratios are equal, the school is most likely in compliance in this area of Title IX.
*History and Continuing Practice:* Has your school shown a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex? The courts have been firm in noting that the word “continuing” is important when using the second test. Many schools added considerable numbers of women’s teams in the 1970s but either kept the status quo or decreased opportunities during the 1980s. Those changes occurred quite long ago. So, let’s stay focused on our current generation of young people and their athletic opportunities.
*Effectively Accommodating Interests and Abilities:* Are the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex fully and effectively accommodated by the current program? In the third test, the key words are “fully and effectively.” Educational institutions that offer athletic programs are required to effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of their students. Under Title IX, these institutions must provide opportunities for individuals of each sex to participate in sports, as well as provide those individuals with competitive team schedules."

*"The second major compliance prong of Title IX encompasses athletic financial assistance*. The only monetary requirement of Title IX deals with the area of scholarships. Scholarships must be allocated in proportion to the number of female and male students participating in intercollegiate athletics. Funding for women’s and men’s programs does not have to be equal, but a significant disparity in funds does suggest that institutions could be found non-compliant in other program areas." When you go to the OCR reading room, you see that there are still more findings related to not offering financial assistance to women in proportion to their enrollment.

*"This third compliance prong of Title IX *requires equivalence in other athletic benefits and opportunities and includes all other program areas not previously covered. Title IX does not require that each men’s and women’s team receive exactly the same services and supplies, but it looks at the entirety of the treatment the men’s and women’s programs receive as a whole. The equivalence of overall treatment is measured on the basis of eleven criteria."


----------



## espola (Jul 7, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> I am not sure where your numbers for scholarships come from or what is included in those numbers but based on the rules of Title IX as noted below, you cannot look at one total scholarship offering number because there are so many variables that go into that total number (i.e. proportion of women and men enrolled at a given college and the interests for a given area). Currently 56% of college attendees are women and certain colleges offer more scholarships in total than other colleges which would provide more disparity when looking at college scholarships in total.
> 
> "*The first compliance prong of Title IX *deals with overall sport and athletic participation offerings available for men and women. A three-part test for participation opportunities determines if institutions provide female and male students with equal athletic opportunities.
> 
> ...


The missing link?

https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocate/title-ix-issues/what-is-title-ix/standard-language-of-title-ix/

Note that that is neither the NCAA nor the Department of Education.


----------



## MWN (Jul 7, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> I am not sure where your numbers for scholarships come from or what is included in those numbers but based on the rules of Title IX as noted below, you cannot look at one total scholarship offering number because there are so many variables that go into that total number (i.e. proportion of women and men enrolled at a given college and the interests for a given area). Currently 56% of college attendees are women and certain colleges offer more scholarships in total than other colleges which would provide more disparity when looking at college scholarships in total.


After Title IX became law, the NCAA created scholarship limits for the various sports, which was supposed to accomplish two things (1) primarily prevent schools from hoarding athletes to ensure competitive balance between members schools and (2) secondarily assist schools in meeting the new Title IX mandates by disproportionately limiting scholarships available to men v. women.  Note, the two men's money sports, football and basketball receive enough scholarships to field multiple teams (1st, 2nd, and 3rd string).  The other sports, by NCAA rules are limited, often based on "equivalency rules," versus the "head count" rules.  Thus, partial scholarships are handed out so coaches can field a team.  With regard to soccer, the limits are (see, http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html):

NCAA DI = 9.9 for men, 14 for woman
NCAA DII 9 for men and 9.9 for women
The other two college sports associations, treat men and women equally, thus, this is an NCAA problem and not directly related to Title IX, because these associations have chosen to allow schools to manage the Title IX mandates.

NAIA  12 for both
NJCAA 24 for both
Ultimately, my only point here is that the NCAA is doing no favors to soccer and the popularity of the sport will not occur via the college system because a coach cannot even field an entire team with full-ride scholarship players.  To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is part to Title IX, I say its BS.  

Moreover, the lack of scholarships available to men is especially harsh for the sport.   To the extent that others believe the college game in relevant to increasing the popularity on the men's side, I disagree because the college men's programs are hamstrung by the NCAA scholarship limits.


----------



## espola (Jul 7, 2018)

MWN said:


> After Title IX became law, the NCAA created scholarship limits for the various sports, which was supposed to accomplish two things (1) primarily prevent schools from hoarding athletes to ensure competitive balance between members schools and (2) secondarily assist schools in meeting the new Title IX mandates by disproportionately limiting scholarships available to men v. women.  Note, the two men's money sports, football and basketball receive enough scholarships to field multiple teams (1st, 2nd, and 3rd string).  The other sports, by NCAA rules are limited, often based on "equivalency rules," versus the "head count" rules.  Thus, partial scholarships are handed out so coaches can field a team.  With regard to soccer, the limits are (see, http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html):
> 
> NCAA DI = 9.9 for men, 14 for woman
> NCAA DII 9 for men and 9.9 for women
> ...


I think I agree with you, except I don't know what you mean by "To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is part to Title IX, I say its BS."

Any  NCAA DI or DII school that awards anything close to the full scholarships allowed for football is ignoring the elephant in the room.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2018)

MWN said:


> After Title IX became law, the NCAA created scholarship limits for the various sports, which was supposed to accomplish two things (1) primarily prevent schools from hoarding athletes to ensure competitive balance between members schools and (2) secondarily assist schools in meeting the new Title IX mandates by disproportionately limiting scholarships available to men v. women.  Note, the two men's money sports, football and basketball receive enough scholarships to field multiple teams (1st, 2nd, and 3rd string).  The other sports, by NCAA rules are limited, often based on "equivalency rules," versus the "head count" rules.  Thus, partial scholarships are handed out so coaches can field a team.  With regard to soccer, the limits are (see, http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html):
> 
> NCAA DI = 9.9 for men, 14 for woman
> NCAA DII 9 for men and 9.9 for women
> ...


Each college is held accountable to Title IX before NCAA rules in that if a college has 65% men to 35% women participating in college sports then the total sports financial assistance to men needs to be close to 65% of the total financial assistance provided to participating athletes.   If they aren't close, then they would be out of compliance and would need to make the male financial assistance congruent with the male/female percentages attending that college.    In addition, I could find nothing that talked about NCAA or the like in the OCR findings to various colleges.

For colleges with football programs that would generally make less financial assistance available to men in soccer but in total men's sports financial assistance for that school should be congruent with the male/female percentages attending that college.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 7, 2018)

Both my kids have been to on bunch of college campus visits/ tours. They liked some of schools but after talking with players, fellow students, coaches and what not the soccer programs really have not excited them much.

My son been to a bunch of college games yet he doesn't think the short season or play is what he's wants to do for 4 to 5 years, much to boring he says.  For the boys there are limited partial sholarships, at the D1 he was looking into coaches told him almost all those goes to lower income families.   Instead of any more us college visits he's decided to apply for his EU passport and is touring & training at some of  the Euporean academies and universities for the next few months

For our daughter who is not even as highly rated in soccer as our son she has been recuited and offered more sholarship opportunies. In the end she decided that she wanted to focus on her career and education, soccer for her in college is too much of a sacrifice without any end game.  The academic & citizen sholarships she has obtain so far are going to go a long way when she starts University in the fall.


----------



## jpeter (Jul 7, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> I agree with many points of view.  Just not ones that are really, really dumb.
> 
> If you want an original idea, I’ll give you one: relax.  The US is doing about as well as possible with its current youth systems given the country’s geography and cultural, societal and educational demographics.  There’s absolutely nothing that can be done at a macro level to substantially improve soccer here, unless we make structural changes to society that would make the US a worse place to live and which are unrealistic anyway.  Or maybe Bill Gates decides youth soccer is more important than clean water in Africa.
> 
> ...


The OP on page 1 summed it up nicely:
"One thing that limits soccer is pay to play"

"If we want to get better, the US Soccer Federation has to develop a better system. It can't be the case that potential stars aren't found because they can't afford to play or that they're just overlooked entirely"

IMG is the tops for pay to play, have you seen them play in DA? terrible and near the bottom of the tables.

Ussf has 110+ million dollars in profits they are sitting on, I can think of a many ways they could be spending that profit. He's one orginal one:  give out grants to any school or parks that wants to convert parts of blacktops or play space to futstal courts.  Getting more kids playing futstal at elementary and middle schools would create a whole generation of players with better skills.    I've seen some cities converter some seldom tennis courts too futstal and the cost was minimal.

Im with you on solidarity payments, the established stakeholders are against that so going to take special to get that done, hopefully not a another Olympics or world cup miss.

My kids are almost done with youth soccer so it's pretty much now or never so trying to make the best of it.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2018)

espola said:


> The missing link?
> 
> https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/advocate/title-ix-issues/what-is-title-ix/standard-language-of-title-ix/
> 
> Note that that is neither the NCAA nor the Department of Education.


I had read the information in OCR (Office of Civil Rights) case resolutions (findings letters that looked at enrollment between sexes and the amount of financial assistance given to each gender (i.e. one case required a college to up their financial assistance to near 65% from 56% for females since female enrollment was 65% and the financial aid provided for women's sports made up 56% of the pool of financial assistance) and I also read the below information from the "Dear Colleague Letter April 2010" which is the guidance given to colleges by the Board of Education as noted below but thought the information I provided was more clear but said the same thing.  For your benefit Espola here is the info from the Dear Colleague Letter April 2010.  Notice NCAA plays no role in the test.  

*"The Three-Part Test *

As discussed above, OCR uses the three-part test to determine whether an institution is providing nondiscriminatory athletic participation opportunities in compliance with the Title IX regulation. The test provides the following three compliance options:


Whether intercollegiate level participation opportunities for male and female students are provided in numbers substantially proportionate to their respective enrollments; or 


Where the members of one sex have been and are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, whether the institution can show a history and continuing practice of program expansion which is demonstrably responsive to the developing interests and abilities of the members of that sex; or 


Where the members of one sex are underrepresented among intercollegiate athletes, and the institution cannot show a history and continuing practice of program expansion, as described above, whether it can be demonstrated that the interests and abilities of the members of that sex have been fully and effectively accommodated by the present program.11
The three-part test is intended to allow institutions to maintain flexibility and control over their athletic programs consistent with Title IX’s nondiscrimination requirements. As stated in the 1996 Clarification, “[T]he three-part test furnishes an institution with three individual avenues to choose from when determining how it will provide individuals of each sex with nondiscriminatory opportunities to participate in intercollegiate athletics. If an institution has met any part of the three-part test, OCR will determine that the institution is meeting this requirement.”


----------



## younothat (Jul 7, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> I had read the information in OCR (Office of Civil Rights) case resolutions (findings letters that looked at enrollment between sexes and the amount of financial assistance given to each gender (i.e. one case required a college to up their financial assistance to near 65% from 56% for females since female enrollment was 65% and the financial aid provided for women's sports made up 56% of the pool of financial assistance) and I also read the below information from the "Dear Colleague Letter April 2010" which is the guidance given to colleges by the Board of Education as noted below but thought the information I provided was more clear but said the same thing.  For your benefit Espola here is the info from the Dear Colleague Letter April 2010.  Notice NCAA plays no role in the test.
> 
> *"The Three-Part Test *
> 
> ...


Have you been through the recruiting, college placement, or scholarship process  that involves sports with a female, male, or both?  

I'm not done yet but they are not equal;  Title 9 is a federal law that operates like a entitlement program, there is no way around that, some men's soccer programs get less than 9 scholarships and women's 15+.  We were told the 3 or so for the men's DI soccer programs have gone to other women sports that don't necessarily have allocations.   I'm all for  giving women athletes having the right to equal opportunity in sports in educational institutions that receive federal funds, but there has been very little oversite and some abuse of the system. 

The law applies to educational institutions that receive any federal funds and prohibits discrimination in all educational programs and activities, not just athletics

The penalty for non-compliance with Title IX is withdrawal of federal funds. Despite the fact that most estimates are that 80 to 90 percent of all educational institutions are not in compliance with Title IX as it applies to athletics, such withdrawal of federal moneys has never been initiated.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2018)

younothat said:


> Have you been through the recruiting, college placement, or scholarship process  that involves sports with a female, male, or both?
> 
> I'm not done yet but they are not equal;  Title 9 is a federal law that operates like a entitlement program, there is no way around that, some men's soccer programs get less than 9 scholarships and women's 15+.  We were told the 3 or so for the men's DI soccer programs have gone to other women sports that don't necessarily have allocations.   I'm all for  giving women athletes having the right to equal opportunity in sports in educational institutions that receive federal funds, but there has been very little oversite and some abuse of the system.
> 
> ...


I am guessing that the scholarships of 15 for women and 9 for men has a football program and that is why there are less for men's soccer but when you look at scholarship money in total, and the allocation of those funds among men and women, you will see a different story.    It may be the case if only looking at men's soccer vs. women's soccer but that is generally because the school has a football program.

There are plenty of investigations of colleges and requirements to make changes and provide evidence to the OCR.   Every complaint is required to be initially reviewed within 60 days (I think) at which time if the complaint has sufficient validity, it will be allocated to an office for further investigation.  If there is a finding of non compliance, the first course of action is for the College to make changes that need to be approved and monitored by the OCR.  What college is not going to do what the OCR tells them to do and take the risk of losing their funding?  While many Colleges get attorneys involved with discussions with the OCR, the reality is the findings will be addressed by the college or they will lose their funding.  Having said that, the investigation can take a year or more.  Every case I looked at in the OCR reading room, the college was dinged big time and had to show proof of changes over the course of 2 years.  I didn't see any big name colleges but that doesn't mean much since the OCR search engine is terrible!  That is our Government for you!

The only reason I am harping on this is because the various postings make it sound like women are getting more than men in college sports and that is not the case.

Title IX represents both sexes.  If males are being discriminated against or "under represented", they can file a complaint under Title IX too.


----------



## MWN (Jul 7, 2018)

espola said:


> I think I agree with you, except I don't know what you mean by "To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is part to Title IX, I say its BS."
> 
> Any  NCAA DI or DII school that awards anything close to the full scholarships allowed for football is ignoring the elephant in the room.


There is a typo, it should read "To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is in part to Title IX, I say its BS.  What I'm trying to say is using Title IX as a crutch for the disparate treatment between men and women's soccer is B.S.  The NCAA should cap certain sports for competitive reasons, which prevents schools from hoarding athletes, but it should not create artificially low and disparate caps based on gender.  9.9 scholarship cap for men is v. 14 for women is wrong.  Let schools manage how they are going to comply with Title IX by eliminating sports and/or reallocating scholarships within a range.  But for the love of all things holy, that range needs to be sufficient to allow at least a coach/school to field two teams (22-24 for soccer is reasonable), 18 for baseball/softball, etc.


Keepermom2 said:


> I am guessing that the scholarships of 15 for women and 9 for men has a football program and that is why there are less for men's soccer but when you look at scholarship money in total, and the allocation of those funds among men and women, you will see a different story.    It may be the case if only looking at men's soccer vs. women's soccer but that is generally because the school has a football program.
> 
> There are plenty of investigations of colleges and requirements to make changes and provide evidence to the OCR.   Every complaint is required to be initially reviewed within 60 days (I think) at which time if the complaint has sufficient validity, it will be allocated to an office for further investigation.  If there is a finding of non compliance, the first course of action is for the College to make changes that need to be approved and monitored by the OCR.  What college is not going to do what the OCR tells them to do and take the risk of losing their funding?  While many Colleges get attorneys involved with discussions with the OCR, the reality is the findings will be addressed by the college or they will lose their funding.  Having said that, the investigation can take a year or more.  Every case I looked at in the OCR reading room, the college was dinged big time and had to show proof of changes over the course of 2 years.  I didn't see any big name colleges but that doesn't mean much since the OCR search engine is terrible!  That is our Government for you!
> 
> ...


When it comes to be NCAA scholarship limits it doesn't matter whether there's a men's football program or not. Men get 9.9 and women get 14, at all D1 schools. The discrepancy is an NCAA mandated discrepancy because in part of Title IX. 

Title IX is good for girls, but boys that don't play football receive less opportunity, which means collegiate soccer for boys is disadvantaged and boys that need scholarship money are advised to focus on football and not soccer.  This also means that the quality of collegiate soccer will be low and collegiate soccer will remain inconsequential in the grand scheme.


----------



## younothat (Jul 7, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> I am guessing that the scholarships of 15 for women and 9 for men has a football program and that is why there are less for men's soccer but when you look at scholarship money in total, and the allocation of those funds among men and women, you will see a different story.    It may be the case if only looking at men's soccer vs. women's soccer but that is generally because the school has a football program.
> 
> There are plenty of investigations of colleges and requirements to make changes and provide evidence to the OCR.   Every complaint is required to be initially reviewed within 60 days (I think) at which time if the complaint has sufficient validity, it will be allocated to an office for further investigation.  If there is a finding of non compliance, the first course of action is for the College to make changes that need to be approved and monitored by the OCR.  What college is not going to do what the OCR tells them to do and take the risk of losing their funding?  While many Colleges get attorneys involved with discussions with the OCR, the reality is the findings will be addressed by the college or they will lose their funding.  Having said that, the investigation can take a year or more.  Every case I looked at in the OCR reading room, the college was dinged big time and had to show proof of changes over the course of 2 years.  I didn't see any big name colleges but that doesn't mean much since the OCR search engine is terrible!  That is our Government for you!
> 
> ...


Ah the college I referring to doesn't have Men's football; in fact they only have 9 sports and the women 12 (Volleyball, Waterpolo,  Swimming (men don't run) so difficult to  to see the  scholarship money being equal especially when your talking about 100+ more athletics on the women's side.  I'm sure they make it up in some other program but even with Volleyball women get more scholarships, my kids play both so I checked.

Maybe schools are trying to make up for past underfunded college sports for women because besides football there operating budgets have increased 3 fold I was told in the past 10 years vs others mens sports budgets.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2018)

MWN said:


> There is a typo, it should read "To the extent the NCAA treats men and women difference due is in part to Title IX, I say its BS.  What I'm trying to say is using Title IX as a crutch for the disparate treatment between men and women's soccer is B.S.  The NCAA should cap certain sports for competitive reasons, which prevents schools from hoarding athletes, but it should not create artificially low and disparate caps based on gender.  9.9 scholarship cap for men is v. 14 for women is wrong.  Let schools manage how they are going to comply with Title IX by eliminating sports and/or reallocating scholarships within a range.  But for the love of all things holy, that range needs to be sufficient to allow at least a coach/school to field two teams (22-24 for soccer is reasonable), 18 for baseball/softball, etc.
> 
> 
> When it comes to be NCAA scholarship limits it doesn't matter whether there's a men's football program or not. Men get 9.9 and women get 14, at all D1 schools. The discrepancy is an NCAA mandated discrepancy because in part of Title IX.
> ...


When looking at the *total* pool of scholarships for a given college between men and women without consideration of which sport, you will not find women getting more scholarships than men.  That is how the OCR looks at Title IX.  They look for equivalent opportunity between men and women.   Football adds a problem because the men's scholarships has to be allocated among an additional sport with loads of men.  That messes up the allocation percentages which is why you would expect to see more scholarships to women than men in soccer.   That doesn't play well with developing men's soccer but is it Title IX or once again the sport of Football that causes that problem?

NCAA does not govern Title IX nor does Title IX require caps.  That is NCAA.   I suspect that they are trying to ensure that the allocations come out right but in the end, it is the OCR determining if the college meets the 3 Prong test and if either sex is "underrepresented" than that is an issue.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2018)

younothat said:


> Ah the college I referring to doesn't have Men's football; in fact they only have 9 sports and the women 12 (Volleyball, Waterpolo,  Swimming (men don't run) so difficult to  to see the  scholarship money being equal especially when your talking about 100+ more athletics on the women's side.  I'm sure they make it up in some other program but even with Volleyball women get more scholarships, my kids play both so I checked.
> 
> Maybe schools are trying to make up for past underfunded college sports for women because besides football there operating budgets have increased 3 fold I was told in the past 10 years vs others mens sports budgets.


It sure sounds like NCAA is the one providing the problem under the guise of Title IX.  Title IX is pretty clear about the equity it is searching for and how it goes about reviewing for compliance.   It doesn't care about what the requirements are by the NCAA because it is reviewing actual numbers and those numbers need to represent a combination of equity in opportunities for the male and female students enrolled and total sports participation of students enrolled.   I am only familiar with Title IX and the OCR because I was at my wits end fighting for the safety of my daughter with our school district.  I have no knowledge of NCAA rules etc.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 7, 2018)

FYI...I got this off of the NCAA website:
*Q. How do I know if my institution is in compliance with Title IX?*

You just need to ask. It has become easier for anyone to find out if an institution is in compliance with Title IX. In 1994, the U.S. Congress passed the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, which requires all colleges and universities to report each year on athletics participation numbers, scholarships, program budgets and expenditures, and coaching salaries by gender. Information may be obtained by contacting your institution's athletics department and requesting this information. The results are identified by gender, and a reader may use this information to assist in assessing an institution's compliance with Title IX.


----------



## SPChamp1 (Jul 7, 2018)

I believe that the P2P system’s faults lie in the fact that USSF is basically a closed system. Identifying young local talent has improved since the introduction of the P2P system, however I believe that it has now reached its maximum level of benefit and it is not enough to lead the USMNT to a WC Championship. 

There is no soccer pyramid in the US. MLS essentially has a monopoly on soccer here. Yes, they have opened academies, yes they have identified talent, but essentially, they sit around and wait for every other smaller club to identify and develop youth players and then poach these players from those clubs. Very few families are going to say no, when LAG, LAFC, NYCFC come knocking on their door. They basically sit around and wait to spot the talent instead of fostering it from the beginning. 

In my opinion, open the pyramid, establish a true 1st, 2nd, 3rd division at minimum and introduce promotion and relegation. Once you truly open the pyramid, the investments and money will come. You will now have at minimum 60-70 teams competing for the nation’s best youth talent and they will be forced to develop better coaches and better curriculum to get the best youth in their system. Each pro club will be forced to constantly up the bar for the others. You will see pro clubs start to scour your Local Rec leagues and Sunday Leagues for those talented kids who cannot afford the P2P system. 

It’s not gonna happen overnight. It will never work if you just throw it out there and say we will figure it out as we go, but let’s lay the ground work now so that being the host country is the only reason we are playing in the WC.


----------



## MWN (Jul 8, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> It sure sounds like NCAA is the one providing the problem under the guise of Title IX.  Title IX is pretty clear about the equity it is searching for and how it goes about reviewing for compliance.   It doesn't care about what the requirements are by the NCAA because it is reviewing actual numbers and those numbers need to represent a combination of equity in opportunities for the male and female students enrolled and total sports participation of students enrolled.   I am only familiar with Title IX and the OCR because I was at my wits end fighting for the safety of my daughter with our school district.  I have no knowledge of NCAA rules etc.


That is why I originally wrote that my problem with Title IX is with the NCAA rules that treat mens and womens sports disparately through scholarship limits.  In the context of "US Soccer" the question/discussion as to what role the college level can play is directly impacted by the NCAA's scholarship limits.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 8, 2018)

MWN said:


> That is why I originally wrote that my problem with Title IX is with the NCAA rules that treat mens and womens sports disparately through scholarship limits.  In the context of "US Soccer" the question/discussion as to what role the college level can play is directly impacted by the NCAA's scholarship limits.


Title IX has nothing to do with it and that is my point.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 8, 2018)

MWN said:


> That is why I originally wrote that my problem with Title IX is with the NCAA rules that treat mens and womens sports disparately through scholarship limits.  In the context of "US Soccer" the question/discussion as to what role the college level can play is directly impacted by the NCAA's scholarship limits.


Title IX is not a female law it is a gender equality law.  If men are under represented at a given college via opportunity or financial regardless of NCAA rules, then they are out of compliance and a complaint can be filed with the OCR.


----------



## MWN (Jul 8, 2018)

SPChamp1 said:


> I believe that the P2P system’s faults lie in the fact that USSF is basically a closed system. Identifying young local talent has improved since the introduction of the P2P system, however I believe that it has now reached its maximum level of benefit and it is not enough to lead the USMNT to a WC Championship.
> 
> There is no soccer pyramid in the US. MLS essentially has a monopoly on soccer here. Yes, they have opened academies, yes they have identified talent, but essentially, they sit around and wait for every other smaller club to identify and develop youth players and then poach these players from those clubs. Very few families are going to say no, when LAG, LAFC, NYCFC come knocking on their door. They basically sit around and wait to spot the talent instead of fostering it from the beginning.
> 
> ...


@SPChamp1, I think you are missing a few key elements.  Let's take a step back.

*Powers and Limitations of USSF*
The USSF is the National Governing Body for soccer under the U.S. Olympic Committee.  The USSF has to both comply with the USOC law (Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act) and the IRS Rules for non-profits (its a 501(c)(3)).  The USOC law dictates certain things like "athlete representation" and the IRS rules dictate that it cannot engage in certain activities without violating its non-profit status.  On top of this, the USSF also is a representative member of FIFA and must abide by the FIFA bylaws.

The USSF, pursuant (in part) to the Ted Stevens law has various "councils" that are voting members.  These councils are broken into 4 power groups.  Athletes Council (required under the law); Pro Council (required if you want the money guys to support the federation); Adult Council (2nd largest from a delegate stand point); and Youth Council (largest number of delegates).

At the end of the day, however, delegates don't matter because votes are weighted to give near equal weight to each of the councils.

The Federation, as a non-profit, isn't suppose to engage in "for-profit" activities (its violates the non-profit law).  While its receives money in the form of "membership" fees from its various council members, the lions share of its revenues come from the USMNT and USWNT ($30M in FY 2017) and the monies generated from licensing ($49M).  The membership fees are really pathetic:

Youth = $4.1 M
Referee = $3.1 M
Pro = $1.2 M
Amateur = $500k
Coach = $1.1 M

The MLS, USL, NWSL, are separate "for profit" entities that are members of the USSF through the various councils, BUT the USSF is not a shareholder/member or have any other management say.  

If the USSF attempted to mandate to the MLS or USL that they must implement Pro/Rel, these leagues have two options (1) comply with the suggestion; or (2) say no thanks well just drop out of the USSF and give up our seats on the Adult and Pro Councils, and while we are at it ... you can't have any of our athletes for your National Team (Hockey just did this for this years Olympic cycle).

When it comes to the youth Council (AYSO, US Youth Soccer (Cal South), US Club, etc.), they are the groups that bring in the youth membership funds and are the groups mandated under the USSF Bylaws to effect change in the youth soccer world.  Everything youth related flows through these non-profit organizations, except for two things (1) the Youth National Team and (2) the operation of the DA league (not, its just a league ... the clubs participating are all their own non-profits).

Pay-to-play is the funding source for the clubs that play in the various youth soccer associations.  The USSF doesn't not receive these funds, except a very small portion ($1 per player) earmarked as membership fees.  The cool thing about charging just $1 per youth players tells us in Fiscal 2017 that 4.1M youth players actually contributed their $1 to the Federation.

_Editorial - is anybody surprised, shocked, dismayed that only 1 freaking dollar of their $1,500 to $3,000 in "club" fees goes to the federation?  Follow up, what should the federation do with that dollar?_

*MLS is a Closed Entity / Pyramid Scheme*
The MLS is not a "league" like we have seen before at the professional level.  The MLS is an LLC where each member (owner) owns a percentage and is given the right to operate an MLS team in a particular region.  The players are allocated to the team by the MLS and paid by the MLS (not the team).  The MLS do date, has been breaking even so making a small profit through SUM (soccer united marketing), but has yet to see real success.  It makes about $60M per year under its TV deal.  Compare this to the NFL, where the league is an association of independant franchisees.  Each franchise is its own legal entity and competes against the other franchises under the league rules.  The NFL's annual TV deal pays it roughly $3 billion per year.

*Youth Club Have No Outside Revenue Incentives*
Because the MLS and Professional Players view the payment of solidarity and training fees to youth clubs as taking away from their pockets, the MLS and Professional Player have objected to the USSF administering these payments.

The sole funding source for the vast majority of youth soccer is parents. 

*The DA - MLS - Youth Connection*
The federation and MLS recognized P2P creates barriers for some elite talent so are undertaking a strategy to create fully-funded DA Academies.

The obligation to fund these programs is not the USSF, but the clubs.  After all the USSF only receives about $4.1M in youth fees.

There are two groups of DA clubs.  MLS affiliates and non-MLS affiliates.  The economic incentive is different for each group.  The MLS affiliates, pursuant to the MLS rules are able to identify "Homegrown" players and get some cap relief for their homegrown players, which is the current incentive.  The non-MLS academy teams are nothing more than marketing ploys.  Clubs like Surf, Strikers, Arsenal, Legends, etc., have DA teams that are used as part of their training pyramid.  Join our Flight 3 team as a U9 and your kid could move up the ranks to the DA team, which is partially to fully funded.  These clubs/teams subsidize their DA programs on the backs of the non-DA teams.

Ultimately, the goal is eliminate P2P for the super-elite players (.5% to 1%), but P2P will always exist for the rest of the players.

The USSF's only role here is the creation of a league with rules that require the independent clubs/teams (where the money is) to abide by certain training rules.

With all of that said, the MLS is a major impediment to making real change.  Until another league with the financial backing can threaten its position and provide the USSF a genuine alternative, the US Soccer landscape will not change.

The good news is, however, that European clubs have an eye on the US and appreciate that there is significant talent potential.

As long as we have enough Nationals playing oversees at young enough ages, our National teams will improve.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 8, 2018)

SPChamp1 said:


> I believe that the P2P system’s faults lie in the fact that USSF is basically a closed system. Identifying young local talent has improved since the introduction of the P2P system, however I believe that it has now reached its maximum level of benefit and it is not enough to lead the USMNT to a WC Championship.
> 
> There is no soccer pyramid in the US. MLS essentially has a monopoly on soccer here. Yes, they have opened academies, yes they have identified talent, but essentially, they sit around and wait for every other smaller club to identify and develop youth players and then poach these players from those clubs. Very few families are going to say no, when LAG, LAFC, NYCFC come knocking on their door. They basically sit around and wait to spot the talent instead of fostering it from the beginning.
> 
> ...


Where, exactly, is the money and investment going to come from?  If you build a soccer pitch in a cornfield in Iowa, the ghosts of soccer past will all appear out of thin air to play ball, which will generate massive ticket sales revenue that saves the farm, er, team from foreclosure?  Will someone, anyone, please do us all a favor and explain the business plan and proposed budget as if they were seeking a bank loan?   The bank has a few questions...

Who is going to “invest” in a program that could evaporate in a single year due to relegation?  Why would an MLS team drop a million a year on a program that, for three of them every year, will just vaporize?  Where is a newly promoted non-MLS team going to obtain the approximately $350,000 we are going to loan it that it takes to operate a team every year?  How much do you think it will cost to hire and pay scouts (who actually know what to look for) to scour rec leagues for talent?  Where is the money going to come from to pay these scouts?  What is the likely return on investment paying people to scout 12-14 year olds playing AYSO?  How many 13 year old rec players in the history of the world have ever developed into a pro soccer player, or even a college star?  If that number is zero, as we think it is, why is paying people to scout AYSO games a better return on investment than scouting dance recitals for soccer players? Or spending that money and time coaching kids who are aleady committed to the sport?  If money and investment are going to flow like the River Jordan into a system with P/R, why didn’t that happen with the really awesome CSL that @jpeter described as the greatest and most successful youth soccer development model of all time? A system so mind-bogglingly brilliant that all of the best clubs and players all left it?


----------



## MWN (Jul 8, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> Title IX has nothing to do with it and that is my point.


Yes it does.  The NCAA has chosen to implement its "scholarship limit" rules in a disparate manner because of Title IX.  The NCAA had two basic choices:
1) treat men and women scholarship limits equally, which then puts the burden on Schools to manage their Title IX obligations by eliminating sports to comply.  This is the model adopted by the NAIA and NJCAA.
2) eliminate scholarship limits for non-money sports (everything but Football and Basketball) and then let the Schools decide how to manage scholarships to meet Title IX.  In my opinion, the best choice.
3) Disparately treat scholarship limits in order to assist member schools in compliance with Title IX.  This is the path chosen by the NCAA.  Men get 9.9 and women get 14 scholarships.

Now, if Title IX did not exist, the NCAA's adoption of scholarship limits for the various sports would not be disparate under the NCAA's chosen path (option 3).  But, it does exist, which is fine.  I just wish the NCAA would go with options 1 and 2 and not 3.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 8, 2018)

MWN said:


> @SPChamp1, I think you are missing a few key elements.  Let's take a step back.
> 
> *Powers and Limitations of USSF*
> The USSF is the National Governing Body for soccer under the U.S. Olympic Committee.  The USSF has to both comply with the USOC law (Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act) and the IRS Rules f
> ...


Please stop making sense. This is not the forum for rational thought. I say burn it all down and spend all of our resources on rec leagues and HS soccer, just like they do in all the great soccer powers. Vast sums of money and resources will assuredly flow into the game once we obliterate the only pro and youth leagues and clubs that have ever managed to remain afloat and develop anyone of consequence. The soccer revolution is coming! Power to the people!


----------



## timbuck (Jul 8, 2018)

MWN said:


> After Title IX became law, the NCAA created scholarship limits for the various sports, which was supposed to accomplish two things (1) primarily prevent schools from hoarding athletes to ensure competitive balance between members schools and (2) secondarily assist schools in meeting the new Title IX mandates by disproportionately limiting scholarships available to men v. women.  Note, the two men's money sports, football and basketball receive enough scholarships to field multiple teams (1st, 2nd, and 3rd string).  The other sports, by NCAA rules are limited, often based on "equivalency rules," versus the "head count" rules.  Thus, partial scholarships are handed out so coaches can field a team.  With regard to soccer, the limits are (see, http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html):
> 
> NCAA DI = 9.9 for men, 14 for woman
> NCAA DII 9 for men and 9.9 for women
> ...


And how many D1 men’s scholarships go to foreign (


jpeter said:


> The OP on page 1 summed it up nicely:
> "One thing that limits soccer is pay to play"
> 
> "If we want to get better, the US Soccer Federation has to develop a better system. It can't be the case that potential stars aren't found because they can't afford to play or that they're just overlooked entirely"
> ...


I’ve heard several people suggest that we need to build more futsal courts.  I call BS.  There is no reason that a group of kids that want to play small sided soccer (on blacktop, on grass, on dirt, in a gym) can’t just go out and play.  They can use cones or pug goals. 
The problem is that not enough kids want to grab a ball and play unless it is a scheduled activity.


----------



## MWN (Jul 8, 2018)

timbuck said:


> And how many D1 men’s scholarships go to foreign (


At the D1 level: 16% for men, and 6.2% for women.  There are 5,956 men playing collegiate soccer and 9,383 women playing collegiate soccer.   Due to Title IX mandates regarding gender equality, there are far fewer men's soccer programs at the D1 level because schools with Football and Basketball programs tend to cut men's soccer altogether.  My only point here is not to attack Title IX, but just to recognize that collegiate soccer for men is seriously disadvantaged when compared to women because the lions share of D1 men's scholarships are in Football (18,200), Basketball (10,700) and Baseball (10.3k) although women's basketball is about the same as mens.  

If the issue is promoting "soccer" as a sport at the youth level using college as a carrot, college men's soccer is not a viable solution and a poor choice due to the realities of Title IX.  For girls its a different equation.


----------



## SPChamp1 (Jul 8, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> Where, exactly, is the money and investment going to come from?  If you build a soccer pitch in a cornfield in Iowa, the ghosts of soccer past will all appear out of thin air to play ball, which will generate massive ticket sales revenue that saves the farm, er, team from foreclosure?  Will someone, anyone, please do us all a favor and explain the business plan and proposed budget as if they were seeking a bank loan?   The bank has a few questions...
> 
> Who is going to “invest” in a program that could evaporate in a single year due to relegation?  Why would an MLS team drop a million a year on a program that, for three of them every year, will just vaporize?  Where is a newly promoted non-MLS team going to obtain the approximately $350,000 we are going to loan it that it takes to operate a team every year?  How much do you think it will cost to hire and pay scouts (who actually know what to look for) to scour rec leagues for talent?  Where is the money going to come from to pay these scouts?  What is the likely return on investment paying people to scout 12-14 year olds playing AYSO?  How many 13 year old rec players in the history of the world have ever developed into a pro soccer player, or even a college star?  If that number is zero, as we think it is, why is paying people to scout AYSO games a better return on investment than scouting dance recitals for soccer players? Or spending that money and time coaching kids who are aleady committed to the sport?  If money and investment are going to flow like the River Jordan into a system with P/R, why didn’t that happen with the really awesome CSL that @jpeter described as the greatest and most successful youth soccer development model of all time? A system so mind-bogglingly brilliant that all of the best clubs and players all left it?



For the love of god, who said anything about just popping up a field in BFE and players are going to flock to it and we are going to win a World Cup. 

It is my belief that while MLS would by most be considered a successful league with a great on field product, I do not believe that we are doing enough to continue to build the game domestically when it comes to developing youth talent. Our response shouldn’t be, “well as long as we send our kids to Europe we will be fine”. We have the resources here in the US to do a better job and raise the bar.

Competition is the biggest driver for change and improvement, if you introduce a merit based system and now 100 teams are looking to develop talent for their club so that they can possibly make it to the top of the pyramid, then it becomes a “keeping up with the Jones’s type scenario,” in that more clubs will look to improve the entire system to be relevant. Clubs will look to better develop coaches, they will look harder and deeper to find talent and not just rely on what pops in their lap. 

There is money out there for soccer and while there is always a risk in an investment, if you open the system to a degree the reward for that investment becomes greater. 

Agree or Disagree, I don’t care. I didn’t lay out a fool proof plan and say why doesn’t US soccer do this, just an opinion, but if the system isn’t challenged to a degree then nothing will change. I just think we can do better.


----------



## SPChamp1 (Jul 8, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> Where, exactly, is the money and investment going to come from?  If you build a soccer pitch in a cornfield in Iowa, the ghosts of soccer past will all appear out of thin air to play ball, which will generate massive ticket sales revenue that saves the farm, er, team from foreclosure?  Will someone, anyone, please do us all a favor and explain the business plan and proposed budget as if they were seeking a bank loan?   The bank has a few questions...
> 
> Who is going to “invest” in a program that could evaporate in a single year due to relegation?  Why would an MLS team drop a million a year on a program that, for three of them every year, will just vaporize?  Where is a newly promoted non-MLS team going to obtain the approximately $350,000 we are going to loan it that it takes to operate a team every year?  How much do you think it will cost to hire and pay scouts (who actually know what to look for) to scour rec leagues for talent?  Where is the money going to come from to pay these scouts?  What is the likely return on investment paying people to scout 12-14 year olds playing AYSO?  How many 13 year old rec players in the history of the world have ever developed into a pro soccer player, or even a college star?  If that number is zero, as we think it is, why is paying people to scout AYSO games a better return on investment than scouting dance recitals for soccer players? Or spending that money and time coaching kids who are aleady committed to the sport?  If money and investment are going to flow like the River Jordan into a system with P/R, why didn’t that happen with the really awesome CSL that @jpeter described as the greatest and most successful youth soccer development model of all time? A system so mind-bogglingly brilliant that all of the best clubs and players all left it?



For the love of god, who said anything about just popping up a field in BFE and players are going to flock to it and we are going to win a World Cup. 

It is my belief that while MLS would by most be considered a successful league with a great on field product, I do not believe that we are doing enough to continue to build the game domestically when it comes to developing youth talent. Our response shouldn’t be, “well as long as we send our kids to Europe we will be fine”. We have the resources here in the US to do a better job and raise the bar.

Competition is the biggest driver for change and improvement, if you introduce a merit based system and now 100 teams are looking to develop talent for their club so that they can possibly make it to the top of the pyramid, then it becomes a “keeping up with the Jones’s type scenario,” in that more clubs will look to improve the entire system to be relevant. Clubs will look to better develop coaches, they will look harder and deeper to find talent and not just rely on what pops in their lap. 

There is money out there for soccer and while there is always a risk in an investment, if you open the system to a degree the reward for that investment becomes greater. 

Agree or Disagree, I don’t care. I didn’t lay out a fool proof plan and say why doesn’t US soccer do this, just an opinion, but if the system isn’t challenged to a degree then nothing will change. I just think we can do better.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 8, 2018)

"Although scholarship limits came into effect around the same time as Title IX, in the mid-1970s, that's a coincidence. Back then, the NCAA was concerned that major football programs were hoarding players by giving them financial aid."

"But if you leave preconceptions aside and just look at the data, you will find that the real enemy of men's sports isn't Title IX. It's NCAA scholarship limits."

"Put simply, scholarship limits protect and promote revenue sports."

"The NCAA admits that, for some time now, its scholarship rules have been geared toward generating money. "For men's sports in Division I, the NCAA membership determined in 1974 to separate football and basketball financial aid from other sports," says spokesman Cameron Schuh. "This move was predicated on the ability of those sports at that time to generate revenue for the institutions as compared to the other sports the institutions fielded."

That's as much as the NCAA would explain, though, about anything related to its scholarship policies. We do know that the NCAA has fiddled with the limits over the years, occasionally reducing the overall number to cut costs in hard times. But at most schools, you still have to get to the fourth-string tight end or the third-string point guard before you find a player who's not getting a full ride in football or basketball, while soccer coaches can't even field a starting lineup of scholarship athletes."

When you read the way the OCR goes about investigating Title IX compliance in case resolutionas and how they calculate compliance, it appears that some schools could potentially be dinged for non compliance for under representing men because of the one size fits all NCAA rules.  It would be interesting to look at the numbers that each college is required to provide on a yearly basis but not enough so that I will try and get that information.  

http://www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sports


----------



## jpeter (Jul 8, 2018)

timbuck said:


> And how many D1 men’s scholarships go to foreign (
> 
> 
> I’ve heard several people suggest that we need to build more futsal courts.  I call BS.  There is no reason that a group of kids that want to play small sided soccer (on blacktop, on grass, on dirt, in a gym) can’t just go out and play.  They can use cones or pug goals.
> The problem is that not enough kids want to grab a ball and play unless it is a scheduled activity.


I was referring to elementary to middle school kids. 90% of them likely never heard of futsal and have no knowledge of the games starting out. 

During free time recess and/or lunch kids go to the blacktops to play basketball, handball or whatever because that what's available to them.  Having a futsal court in the mix will allow them the opportunitity to play and learn the game, PE could teach that in there rotation of sports.  Grade school Basketball is popular partly because there are so many hoops and courts at school almost anybody can get involved,  soccer not so much if there is room on grass or if  there is even a pitch for 7v7, so not many kids are playing at lunch or whenever.


----------



## MWN (Jul 8, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> "Although scholarship limits came into effect around the same time as Title IX, in the mid-1970s, that's a coincidence. Back then, the NCAA was concerned that major football programs were hoarding players by giving them financial aid."
> 
> "But if you leave preconceptions aside and just look at the data, you will find that the real enemy of men's sports isn't Title IX. It's NCAA scholarship limits."
> 
> ...


@Keepermom2,
The ESPN article does not examine the disparity between mens and womans teams within the same sport, but simply concludes that revenue is the reason why men's soccer can't field a team.  There is no questions that NCAA scholarship limits are designed to ensure competitive balance between the schools AND the fact that the money sports get the lions share of the scholarships is a clear indication that the NCAA is protecting those money sports.

However, where the ESPN article falls down is that it doesn't attempt to answer why mens soccer gets 9.9 and women's soccer gets 14.  Like any issue the answers are generally multi-faceted and there always isn't just 1 answer.  Does men's soccer generate less revenue than women's collegiate soccer?  No.  Mens collegiate soccer for a few schools is actually profitable to break even.  The reason for the disparity between men's and women's soccer is because of how the NCAA has addressed Title IX demands in its scholarship limitation rules.

So, the ESPN article is a nice discussion as it relates purely revenue v. non-revenue sports, but please note that nowhere does it attempt to examine why across the board why women get more scholarships in a given sport compared to the same men's sport.  It recognizes the discrepancy exists, but doesn't answer why.  If its not Title IX, and it certainly isn't revenue for that sport as most collegiate sports programs are money losers, then what is it?

Bottom line, the NCAA has created rules that treats non-revenue sports differently between men and women because of Title IX.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 8, 2018)

SPChamp1 said:


> For the love of god, who said anything about just popping up a field in BFE and players are going to flock to it and we are going to win a World Cup.
> 
> It is my belief that while MLS would by most be considered a successful league with a great on field product, I do not believe that we are doing enough to continue to build the game domestically when it comes to developing youth talent. Our response shouldn’t be, “well as long as we send our kids to Europe we will be fine”. We have the resources here in the US to do a better job and raise the bar.
> 
> ...


Seriously, where does the money come from?  If MLS teams already drop a million dollars a year on their academies, how does it become a better investment for them if there’s a 20% chance every year they’ll lose their entire investment, plus they need to drop another $100-200k annually to pay scouts to scour the rec leagues to find “potential”?  That doesn’t exactly sound like a better investment to me, but what would I know about investing money?

“Keeping up with the Jones” was coined as a way of explaining that it’s a bad idea to do something that is unsustainable, by the way.  It’s not exactly the sound business model that you that you think it is. Please just tell me, where is this money coming from once you drive those who are already spending it on development out of the business because you made it too risky and expensive for them?  If you need a cliche, the better one is “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”


----------



## mahrez (Jul 8, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> Seriously, where does the money come from?  If MLS teams already drop a million dollars a year on their academies, how does it become a better investment for them if there’s a 20% chance every year they’ll lose their entire investment, plus they need to drop another $100-200k annually to pay scouts to scour the rec leagues to find “potential”?  That doesn’t exactly sound like a better investment to me, but what would I know about investing money?
> 
> “Keeping up with the Jones” was coined as a way of explaining that it’s a bad idea to do something that is unsustainable, by the way.  It’s not exactly the sound business model that you that you think it is. Please just tell me, where is this money coming from once you drive those who are already spending it on development out of the business because you made it too risky and expensive for them?  If you need a cliche, the better one is “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”


The Galaxy are spending $4 million or more on there academy per year and have yet to  see much return on that investment. Can you name any pro 1st team or current MNT players that have spendt more than a season there as youth?

There not going to get regulated due to open competition at the youth level, the ones that are those clubs that are not competive, look at the u15-18 standings and you will see the problems.

MLS soccer and there academies are money losers currently for the most part and they keep aflot by deep pocket parent companies or rich indvidual families.

Us soccer has a huge surplus of money,  govt gives out vast sums on sholarships,  parents spend millions on pay to play so there are ways to get funding.

It's easier to get $ out of parents then to raise funds through soccer charties, sponserships, partnerships, etc so the path of less resistance has been choosen.

Think about all the soccer programs that are lower cost: High School, Latin Leagues, AYSO, indoor, etc they have a much larger base of players and manage so there businesses plans must be working right?

One of the biggest problem of all is nobody really wants to cooperate with any other organization be it ussf, da, us club, cal south, high school, etc and there all driving there own agenda so we don't have a unified apporach to the problem and the $ is spead wide & thin.   Budgets can be planned, resources found but when you're primarily looking to parents to fund youth soccer than the usa might keep missing out at higher level play at the WC or oylmpics.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 8, 2018)

Not accurate.  NCAA rules throw certain colleges out of compliance with Title IX because of their caps as shown in the sports vice article I provided below.  In addition, you can look at the data submitted to Board of Education for each school and see for yourself.  Note the reports that the colleges are required to submit do not include scholarships by sport only the total scholarships.   https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/   I said it early on because I am a numbers person; you can't put in global caps and meet the requirements under Title IX at every school and the article reiterates that point. NCAA may be saying that is why they are doing it but it doesn't make it so.  The numbers speak for themselves.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/d7mpqk/is-the-ncaa-undermining-title-ix

*NCAA rules do not combine with Title IX*- "In a bigger picture sense, perhaps this shouldn't be surprising. The Office for Civil Rights enforces Title IX, not the NCAA. The NCAA does not have Title IX requirements written into its bylaws and does not make Title IX compliance a requirement for membership, nor has it ever punished member schools who fall out of compliance. Similarly, none of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, or Pac-12 have Title IX provisions. (The ACC told VICE Sports that it does not comment on ongoing litigation. The Big 12 declined to comment.)

In fact, the NCAA actually sued the federal government in 1976 in a failed effort to challenge Title IX. Today, that isn't an option: not legally, and certainly not from a public relations standpoint. Still, the association's history, governance, and current scholarship caps suggest that it doesn't seem to care a whole lot about Title IX—not unless it can hide behind the law in order to keep money away from athletes, male _and_ female."

"Title IX is thrown up at times as a smokescreen to prevent candid ways of dealing with some of the longstanding problems that we've had in college sports," said Drexel sport management professor Ellen Staurowsky, a NCAA critic and college sports historian. "Consistent with the overall industry tendency, I think the rules get manipulated in service to whatever issue of the day is of greatest threat to the profitability of the entities involved."

After further reading and thought, it appears the NCAA has made an attempt to balance and meet Title IX without impacting too much the profitable sports football and basketball thus not only reducing the scholarships given to men in other sports but as the article states, still putting colleges out of compliance with Title IX  in favor of men.   Having said that, I would argue any college that doesn't offer football but has to stick to the NCAA limit would probably be out of compliance in favor of women thus still putting the school out of compliance with Title IX.  I looked at  information submitted to the Board of Education for two schools and was not shocked to see I was right on both of my assertions.  One Pack 12 school looked okay until I realized they forgot to put the number of men's soccer players into their report which makes them out of compliance on the financial aid given in favor of men.  I checked with my authoritative source Facebook to ensure there was an active team during the school year provided and yep there was.  The other school I looked at didn't have a football program and was out of compliance in favor of women.    https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

My point again is that Title IX is NOT only for women and is not the reason why men get less scholarships  in soccer.  The NCAA could easily make it even in soccer and take away a small bit from Football or Basketball to meet whatever crazy one size fits all goal they are trying to meet under the guise of Title IX.  If you read Title IX and the case resolutions, you will see it is NOT an "Entitlement" program for women nor are there any specific requirements catering only towards women.  That is NCAA that has done that.  It is a rule ensuring balanced opportunities for men and women in sports based upon enrollment of each gender and interest of students at each college.  One size fits all caps clearly is not congruent with what Title IX is trying to achieve.  I am guessing the OCR is not immediately doing anything about this because they are soooo bogged down with sexual harassment cases, transgender cases of discrimination, as well as 504 disability cases among many other cases.   They have very few people to take these cases on so if there isn't a complaint they have to address, they don't do anything proactively unless of course there are many complaints.

This has been an informative run for me and I am done.  I just really dislike blanket statements like women are getting favorable treatment when that is not true when looking at college sports in totality.


----------



## MWN (Jul 8, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> Not accurate.  ...
> My point again is that Title IX is NOT only for women and is not the reason why men get less scholarships  in soccer.


The above is not true.  Let me try this one last time.  In 1982 at the NCAA Convention, the scholarship limits for women were established.

"Some women’s sports had higher financial aid limits than their comparable men’s sports. *This was intentional and mainly due to the financial impact and ability for member institutions to meet Title IX proportionality requirements (NCAA Convention Proceedings, 1982).*" (See, page 26, TITLE IX COMPLIANCE VS. NCAA SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS - https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:c5a88a69-2a45-4102-9693-a4a17180e559)

Now, the author of this thesis (a female) concluded after reading the various NCAA minutes and proceedings what I have been trying to explain, the NCAA adopted disproportionate scholarship limits in order for its member institutions to meet Title IX requirements.

The argument that Tittle IX is not the cause of the NCAA's disproportionate scholarship limits is not based on fact and contrary to the NCAA's minutes.  Moreover, it makes absolutely no logical sense that the NCAA would create disproportionate scholarship limits if there was not some force requiring member schools to offset scholarships granted for other mens programs (namely, football).

I note (as does the author) of the above link that the NCAA could handle this differently and simply make the scholarship limits equal, thereby giving schools the choice to either drop men's soccer entirely (as do many schools), especially those with football programs or schools could self regulate the number of scholarships granted by impacting whatever programs they see fit.  The problem with the later is competitive imbalances may occur, which is fine by me as long as we raise the caps to allow a program to at least scholarship 2 year worth of athletes. (Thus, soccer on boys and girls should get 22-24).

One final note, just because a limit exists does not mean a school has to reach it.  Its potential competitiveness will suffer, but Schools can choose which programs to invest in and which they won't.  Setting a limit of 22 simply means a school cannot exceed that, its still free to only hand out 7 in order to meet Title IX requirements if another men's program is using most of the men's scholarships.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 8, 2018)

MWN said:


> The above is not true.  Let me try this one last time.  In 1982 at the NCAA Convention, the scholarship limits for women were established.
> 
> "Some women’s sports had higher financial aid limits than their comparable men’s sports. *This was intentional and mainly due to the financial impact and ability for member institutions to meet Title IX proportionality requirements (NCAA Convention Proceedings, 1982).*" (See, page 26, TITLE IX COMPLIANCE VS. NCAA SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS - https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:c5a88a69-2a45-4102-9693-a4a17180e559)
> 
> ...


Just because NCAA says they are doing it in response to Title IX does not make it so nor does the resulting lack of compliance with Title IX from so many colleges indicate that.  I doubt there is anything in their minutes that showed support for how the caps they instituted provided gender equalization across all colleges in accordance with Title IX or said more than we have to do this in accordance with Title IX.  Either they are completely ignorant to the law or they have their own agenda and I believe the answer is both.  I believe the caps that NCAA put in place has to do with their own agenda which was to make sure the profitable sport of football was protected.  At the moment that Title IX was put in place it would have been logical (without consideration of profit issues) to take from football to increase other women's sports since there isn't an equivalent female sport and the numbers required for football were so large but what NCAA put in place decreased scholarships to all of men's sports even though there was an equivalent female team and as such protected football.  

What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX?  Anyone can say they are enacting laws in accordance with a given law but if it has no resemblance of the law, than they didn't enact it as a result of that law.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 8, 2018)

jpeter said:


> During free time recess and/or lunch kids go to the blacktops to play basketball, handball or whatever because that what's available to them.  Having a futsal court in the mix will allow them the opportunitity to play and learn the game, PE could teach that in there rotation of sports.  Grade school Basketball is popular partly because there are so many hoops and courts at school almost anybody can get involved,  soccer not so much if there is room on grass or if  there is even a pitch for 7v7, so not many kids are playing at lunch or whenever.


Don’t disagree. Most kids don’t know futsal. But side note outside the burbs many cal schools have eliminated pe since nclb and common core creates incentives mostly for money to be pumped into core subjects and infrastructure, along with a rising pension problem. Sports arts and music were first to be cut. 


mahrez said:


> Think about all the soccer programs that are lower cost: High School, Latin Leagues, AYSO, indoor, etc they have a much larger base of players and manage so there businesses plans must be working right?
> 
> One of the biggest problem of all is nobody really wants to cooperate with any other organization be it ussf, da, us club, cal south, high school, etc and there all driving there own agenda so we don't have a unified apporach to the problem and the $ is spead wide & thin.   Budgets can be planned, resources found but when you're primarily looking to parents to fund youth soccer than the usa might keep missing out at higher level play at the WC or oylmpics.


All 3 programs have suffered due to club soccer. High school from da players having restrictions on play and a lack of college scouting. Ayso from top talent dropping out for club and by u14 being pretty much a waste land. Ayso is now canabalizing it’s own core program through extras and United, some teams of which are surprisingly competitive due to the large pool they select from.  The best Latin league players are poached by pay to play clubs offering scholarships. Travel and transport are bigger problems for these players than club fees.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 8, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> Don’t disagree. Most kids don’t know futsal. But side note outside the burbs many cal schools have eliminated pe since nclb and common core creates incentives mostly for money to be pumped into core subjects and infrastructure, along with a rising pension problem. Sports arts and music were first to be cut.
> 
> 
> All 3 programs have suffered due to club soccer. High school from da players having restrictions on play and a lack of college scouting. Ayso from top talent dropping out for club and by u14 being pretty much a waste land. Ayso is now canabalizing it’s own core program through extras and United, some teams of which are surprisingly competitive due to the large pool they select from.  The best Latin league players are poached by pay to play clubs offering scholarships. Travel and transport are bigger problems for these players than club fees.


I’m not sure PE teachers are equipped for much. Certainly not to give guidance on how to play futsal. 
In PE last year, my 6th header had to demonstrate that she could juggle.  Not with a soccer ball.  But like a circus clown.  Had to get several rotations for an “A” that week.


----------



## MWN (Jul 8, 2018)

Keepermom2 said:


> *Just because NCAA says they are doing it in response to Title IX does not make it so* nor does the resulting lack of compliance with Title IX from so many colleges indicate that.  *I doubt there is anything in their minutes that showed support for how the caps they instituted provided gender equalization across all colleges in accordance with Title IX or said more than we have to do this in accordance with Title IX*.  Either they are completely ignorant to the law or they have their own agenda and I believe the answer is both.  I believe the caps that NCAA put in place has to do with their own agenda which was to make sure the profitable sport of football was protected.  At the moment that Title IX was put in place it would have been logical (without consideration of profit issues) to take from football to increase other women's sports since there isn't an equivalent female sport and the numbers required for football were so large but what NCAA put in place decreased scholarships to all of men's sports even though there was an equivalent female team and as such protected football.
> 
> What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX?  Anyone can say they are enacting laws in accordance with a given law but if it has no resemblance of the law, than they didn't enact it as a result of that law.


Just take a step back.  We have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Kantor in her review of the NCAA Convention proceedings from 1982.  It also makes perfect logical sense.  Consider the following:

1976 Title IX becomes law.
1976 NCAA and its members are figuring out how to handle this.
1981-1982 The NCAA begins tracking gender participation rates and is the first year of its detailed study.
1982 The convention gets the report and sees that it has a problem with participation rates almost double for men v. women.  It recognizes woman sports for the first time will be subject to the "scholarship limits" just like the men.  But how do we solve the gender imbalance?  We can't allocate the same number as the men, because that won't offset the football problem, unless we take away sports from men and add additional sports for women.  We want to ensure some limits to protect the money sports (football and basketball).  The only thing we can do to address the Title IX mandate is give more scholarships for certain sports to woman to assist school in compliance with Title IX.

Its logical and how it happened, as reported by Ms. Kantor who (unlike you and I) actually reviewed the minutes.  I don't doubt it because it makes perfect sense.  Moreover, it was a reasonable solution by the NCAA at the time given the fact Title IX posed serious problems for NCAA institutions and still does.

With regard to your question "What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX?"  What they did is treat certain men's sports programs in a disparate manner by providing women's programs with more scholarships to allow schools to cure the imbalance.  Thus, men stayed at 9.9 and rather than giving woman 9.9, which would have not helped the football schools in meeting Title IX compliance so they gave women 14 in soccer and so on (basketball, women get 15 (men 13); X-Country/Track, men 12.6 and women 18, etc.)

Why are you fighting this so hard?  Nothing I have written is wrong or untrue.  The NCAA adopted disparate scholarship limits between men and women to assist its members in complying with Title IX.  It was the solution the NCAA chose in 1982 to their member's Title IX compliance problems.  Whether schools today are in or out of compliance with Title IX is inconsequential to the decision in 1982 to set the scholarship limits higher for women because of the relatively new Title IX mandates.


----------



## Keepermom2 (Jul 9, 2018)

MWN said:


> Just take a step back.  We have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Kantor in her review of the NCAA Convention proceedings from 1982.  It also makes perfect logical sense.  Consider the following:
> 
> 1976 Title IX becomes law.
> 1976 NCAA and its members are figuring out how to handle this.
> ...


How does the NCAA scholarship limits comply with Title IX?  Show me the link between how those limits are applied and the law?


----------



## younothat (Jul 9, 2018)

Maybe we should just start over....

Since most people don't show up and play pickup anymore we can have organized training and games ever Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday at your local school, pitch, park, wherehouse or whatever.

Underground music scene festival style,  show up in your costume (uniform of choice) but only blacks and whites  please so we can figure who's on what team without spending money on those fancy pinnies.

$5 per hour per player, unisex, 3 age groups playing together, having fun, teams are picked by rock, paper, and scissors

You can call your league/team what every you want;  Super Mario Bros, BLINK-1ETO'O,  DIRTY SANCHEZ (adults only sorry),  ABSOLUTELY FABREGAS, KLOPPS AND ROBBERS

Games go until the ice cream truck shows up,  your don't have to buy from the truck but if you don't you might not have a referee since there pulling double duty

Parking is free unless you want to sponsor the kids who can't pay the $5 per hour. 

Standing are keep so top teams advance to the Super KFC Wimbledon cup where you eat chicken and wonder what this has to do with soccer. 

Title 99 says everybody can play as long as you can show a receipt that your bought "hot" air from the the balloon guy at the 99 cent store.


----------



## coachsamy (Jul 9, 2018)

CSL was great until the great powers were being relegated by the smaller guy and those great powers went into form what we know as SCDSL...


----------



## Mystery Train (Jul 9, 2018)

This thread  ^^^^^


----------



## coachsamy (Jul 9, 2018)

A little glimpse of what could happen if MLS goes into P/R... 

- Current MLS owners/execs will suffer. Look at Columbus Crew ownership pulling a Spanos to the city of Columbus in favor of quick money down in Austin. 

- Players contracts will belong to the actual club and not the league, so player sales are in the books of the individual clubs.

- LAFC, LAG and NYCFC would become the perennial top dog$ in the league. (i.e. America, Chivas Liga MX, Real Madrid, Barcelona La Liga, Juve, AC Milan, InterMilan, Serie 1, etc.)

- A grassroots like Chula Vista FC would become something like a 3rd - 2nd division perennial player builder maintaining budget of player sales.

- A grassroots like Albion Pros could become something like a Leicester City, well managed nothing flashy and surprise in first division every now and then, or just once in their existence.

- Owners would learn how to really manage their money and know that the day they choose to get greedy (Spanos) their whole operations will go bankrupt. Yes I know Spanos is not going bankrupt but in a P/R system that fool would be another homeless down in East Village...

- Its cheaper to develop than to buy in the vast majority of the clubs. Look at Liverpool, Spurs, PSV, Young Boys, etc. These clubs flip players quicker than a burger from MCD's, so smaller clubs can make their living by flipping players after a good run and then invest on cheaper ones. Let LA and NY deep pockets overpay for the sexy names, everyone else builds on quality.

I know that this would cause mad chaos and break the status quo so why bother...


----------



## younothat (Jul 9, 2018)

coachsamy said:


> CSL was great until the great powers were being relegated by the smaller guy and those great powers went into form what we know as SCDSL...


I like nostalgia but what clubs are referring to? 

MLS club never where in CSL that I can recall and Premier didn't start until like U16 when my boy started

Arsenel, Albion, West Coast, Real Socal, Pats, Strikers played CSL at some  point  I remember

Now there the same Albion, Boca Jrs, Fullerton, Oxnard, DMS teams plus news ones like TFA, Golden State, Santa Barbara, AC Brea, Valley United and Premier starts at what U14 now.

On the boys side yeah DA expansion has seemed to cause more dilution but has SCDSL really changed that landscape for boys CSL Premier much ?    DA clubs seem to be putting in there  calendar year split teams back in  CSL just as much as  SCDSL.

On the girls side yes CSL was raided for ECNL, DA, SCDSL, etc.


----------



## younothat (Jul 9, 2018)

Ok back on topic 

Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer? It's all about the Benjamins
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/isnt-u-s-better-soccer-benjamins-153935158.html

"America has either priced out or spooked out many talented children from diverse backgrounds. That’s according to an array of coaches, top players and soccer parents Yahoo Sports spoke with for this story.

“People of different incomes and diversity groups are being left out,” says Michael Fitzgerald, who runs the Saints Soccer Academy only a few miles from Nike headquarters in Oregon. “A lot of families are priced out.”

Fitzgerald has made a concerted effort to make his club affordable to everyone, whether through volunteer coaches or scholarships for players, but he sees obstacles ranging from immigrant groups who “don’t want to be on record” to language barriers to simple perception.

“Some of the Hispanic community here, they have access but they don’t pursue it,” Fitzgerald says. “Because of the perception that it’s a rich man’s sport. They don’t chase it. They see all the rich kids playing soccer. They say that’s not for us. There’s no pathway.”

A study on the subject that was referenced in Time last year cited the “maximum” cost to a soccer family as $5,500 per child, but it was not hard to find families with promising kids whose costs blew way past that. One soccer mom in North Carolina, who asked to remain anonymous so she could speak openly about family finances, said she spends $5,200 _per year_ on club fees alone for her 14-year-old boy. That doesn’t include costs for uniform, health care and summer training. “You can keep going and going and going,” she said.

The women’s national team is far more successful than the men, winning the World Cup in 2015 and likely favored again next year, but that doesn’t mean the same issues don’t arise on that side.

“I don’t think it’s any secret or any surprise to anybody that soccer in America has recently been a very affluent, suburban sport,” said Crystal Dunn, who has played for the national team and now stars for the NWSL’s North Carolina Courage. “The next level of growth is to include everybody in urban and rural populations and make sure everyone has access to the game, both boys and girls.”

Dunn is African-American, but she grew up in a mostly white neighborhood.

“For me, everyone I saw was white,” she said. “That’s just the reality of it. My parents made good money and worked really hard and it’s not always that way for people, I think, of my complexion. I think I was really fortunate.”

Her former teammate, goalkeeper Hope Solo, made headlines recently by calling soccer in America a “rich white kid’s sport.” She said if she had come up in this era, as a working-class child from Washington state, she would have been looked over or priced out.

U.S. national team star Alex Morgan had not heard Solo’s comments, but she didn’t disagree.

“I do feel like there is a problem in the U.S. with younger kids having to pay to play,” Morgan said. “I wish it was more available to all kids.”

There are many efforts underway to reach across barriers. Operation Pitch Invasion is dedicated to building soccer fields in non-traditional places “so that kids of all ages have high-quality and safe playing surfaces to enjoy the beautiful game.” America Scoresoffers a unique combination of “soccer, poetry and service-learning” to give inner-city youth better after-school options.

But it’s not just about introducing and developing the game at the grass-roots level. It’s also about helping talented kids compete in a world that’s top-heavy in top-earning families. “I don’t know if you have to be traveling all the way to California for good matches when you’re 14 years old,” says U.S. national team member Heather O’Reilly, who contributes to America Scores.

The U.S. is a capitalistic society, proudly, and the goal for many is to be profitable as well as to be helpful. So as the interest in soccer increases, so will the interest in the business of soccer. That may make the effort to diversify even tougher, when it seems like it should be the opposite.

This might be the No. 1 challenge for new U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro. He was born in Bombay and moved to Miami as a teen, but he’s considered an insider in the soccer world. He attended Harvard Business School and he was a partner at Goldman Sachs. As part of his platform, he wrote about the need to “invest new resources to make soccer more affordable for youth, especially in our cities and underserved communities.”

It’s only been a few months, but Fitzgerald hasn’t seen much of a change yet.

“I wish there was a bigger braintrust focusing on this,” he said. “I haven’t heard a single word about it since our new president took office. There are a ton of kids who are getting overlooked. And this is Portland; I can only imagine what L.A. is like.”

Find those kids in those cities more frequently, and the U.S. might still be playing at this stage in the 2022 World Cup. After all, the populations of L.A. and Portland add up to roughly the size of Croatia.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 10, 2018)

coachsamy said:


> A little glimpse of what could happen if MLS goes into P/R...
> 
> - Current MLS owners/execs will suffer. Look at Columbus Crew ownership pulling a Spanos to the city of Columbus in favor of quick money down in Austin.
> 
> ...


I’m not sure where Albion Pros is going to find $66 million for annual payroll or money to build it’s own 35,000 person stadium like Leicester. 

I think MLS owners are doing a decent job managing their money, including protecting their investment by not giving free loaders the opportunity to take their share of the $90 million in tv deals they worked hard and took years to secure. Regardless, why does anyone think that replacing the last place SJ Quakes and it’s really cool stadium (with the largest outdoor bar in North America I might add), 20k per game attendance and share of tv viewership with Albion Pros improves soccer in the US.  Their mistake for stupidly investing money in soccer, including its youth academy, I guess.  No one will ever make that mistake again.  Much smarter to create a system that will only generate enough revenue to pay players beer money.

If P/R is the best way for a sports league to excel, why is EPL revenue is dwarfed by the NFL, MLB, and NBA? Actually, that gives me a brilliant idea, as long as we’re proposing unrealistic theories about making soccer great here. First, find 32 people willing to invest roughly $3 billion each.  Second, buy every team in the NFL.  Third, change sports. You don’t even need to change the league name, and the teams already have the infrastructure, both of which provide a massive cost savings that you could never realize any other way.   Plus, you’ve killed off the main competition for sports dollars and opened up a new pipeline for youth players as kids flee a dead end sport with no future.


----------



## mahrez (Jul 10, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> I’m not sure where Albion Pros is going to find $66 million for annual payroll or money to build it’s own 35,000 person stadium like Leicester.
> 
> I think MLS owners are doing a decent job managing their money, including protecting their investment by not giving free loaders the opportunity to take their share of the $90 million in tv deals they worked hard and took years to secure. Regardless, why does anyone think that replacing the last place SJ Quakes and it’s really cool stadium (with the largest outdoor bar in North America I might add), 20k per game attendance and share of tv viewership with Albion Pros improves soccer in the US.  Their mistake for stupidly investing money in soccer, including its youth academy, I guess.  No one will ever make that mistake again.  Much smarter to create a system that will only generate enough revenue to pay players beer money.
> 
> If P/R is the best way for a sports league to excel, why is EPL revenue is dwarfed by the NFL, MLB, and NBA? Actually, that gives me a brilliant idea, as long as we’re proposing unrealistic theories about making soccer great here. First, find 32 people willing to invest roughly $3 billion each.  Second, buy every team in the NFL.  Third, change sports. You don’t even need to change the league name, and the teams already have the infrastructure, both of which provide a massive cost savings that you could never realize any other way.   Plus, you’ve killed off the main competition for sports dollars and opened up a new pipeline for youth players as kids flee a dead end sport with no future.


Avaya stadium is nice,  if the quakes played in a P/R league they would either have to be more competitive or deal with the economics of regulation like the rest of the soccer world does.    

The owner's had deep enough pockets to buy the old airport land from the city and bulid that stadium /wo public funds, his last place team is losing $ hand over fist & his main sponsor Avaya  is bankrupt so if another team say newly-promoted Sacramento Republic took over what would be the difference? capitalism at work.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 10, 2018)

younothat said:


> Ok back on topic
> 
> 
> “Some of the Hispanic community here, they have access but they don’t pursue it,” Fitzgerald says. “Because of the perception that it’s a rich man’s sport. They don’t chase it. They see all the rich kids playing soccer. They say that’s not for us. There’s no pathway.”


That's bunk.  Having spoken to many such families (in Spanish no less.....my kid did tryouts on a minority-majority team, we're church mates with one family, we've chatted with families in an Oxnard latino league, know some coaches who do cut-rate club fees for this community, have chatted with Hispanic club team families and talked to families for some of the big clubs at LA Galaxy games), that's not the reason.  It's actually a little insulting (implies we Hispanics are too dumb or scared to pass up an opportunity because it's a rich man's sport).   If the kid is talented, the opportunities are there.  The problems are: 1) info access (many families are poor, stressed and find it difficult to navigate the club system....hell I couldn't make sense of the alphabet soup when I first jumped in and started learning from you all....one family we talked to on a family picnic didn't even know about club soccer),  2) the families are so stressed with either work schedules, double jobs, and unreliable vehicles, that getting to practice (let alone long distance games) are difficult (the minority-majority club my son tried out with wound up having to cancel many practices at the last minute due to car breakdowns/not enough kids getting rides so unable to show up) and 3) at the higher levels, tournament and college showcase travel costs.  At one club which they are able to make it work, for example, a lot of the players were church mates at the pastor wound up doing a lot of the driving to practice.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 10, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> If P/R is the best way for a sports league to excel, why is EPL revenue is dwarfed by the NFL, MLB, and NBA? Actually, that gives me a brilliant idea, as long as we’re proposing unrealistic theories about making soccer great here. First, find 32 people willing to invest roughly $3 billion each.  Second, buy every team in the NFL.  Third, change sports. You don’t even need to change the league name, and the teams already have the infrastructure, both of which provide a massive cost savings that you could never realize any other way.   Plus, you’ve killed off the main competition for sports dollars and opened up a new pipeline for youth players as kids flee a dead end sport with no future.


It's not just P/R.  It's the salary cap too.  The NBA has been dominated in the past by a few teams (Lakers/Celtics, Bulls...maybe the Lakers/Warriors going forward). Reason they can do it is you only really need a marquee player and 2-3 supporters to build a dominant first string squad with only 5 players on the field on the time.  The MLS salary caps are very severe for supporting players...you are limited to 3 designated players and get some targeted allocation money that has to fall under the thresholds for the 3 DPS.  You cannot build a dominant squad and recruit European level talent from around the world with just 3 DPs.  For those not in DP or TAP money, the salary is just too low to tempt a US-born player away from the security of a college diploma (but it IS enough to tempt someone from T&T or Panama or Costa Rica, which is why those countries have become much more competitive in recent years).  

The rest of the world does not have salary caps as severe as rigid as we do for the MLS.  The result is that in La Liga, for example, 2 teams are dominant year in and year out.  Same with Italy and Germany.  The Premiere league is it's own special beast but is also in the middle of a shakeout right now, as is English soccer (though the Premiere League by any standard is a much more global league since it's nationality caps aren't as rigid).

Fixing P/R alone, however much of a pipe dream, wouldn't be enough.  You'd have to remove the salary caps so you could build some franchise teams here willing to bring top talent to the US and offering US grown talent and incentive to turn pro.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 10, 2018)

mahrez said:


> Avaya stadium is nice,  if the quakes played in a P/R league they would either have to be more competitive or deal with the economics of regulation like the rest of the soccer world does.
> 
> The owner's had deep enough pockets to buy the old airport land from the city and bulid that stadium /wo public funds, his last place team is losing $ hand over fist & his main sponsor Avaya  is bankrupt so if another team say newly-promoted Sacramento Republic took over what would be the difference? capitalism at work.


Instead, they deal with the economics of reality and Sac Republic stays where it belongs next to the River Cats. Funny how capitalism actually works.

I’m certain my plan makes more financial sense.


----------



## mahrez (Jul 10, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> Instead, they deal with the economics of reality and Sac Republic stays where it belongs next to the River Cats. Funny how capitalism actually works.
> 
> I’m certain my plan makes more financial sense.


A last place team losing 5million+ a year on only 34mil in revenue with a bankrupt sponser makes sense, yeah that's a good capitalist plan.  Please


----------



## Dr. Richard Hurtz (Jul 10, 2018)

younothat said:


> Ok back on topic
> 
> Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer? It's all about the Benjamins
> https://www.yahoo.com/sports/isnt-u-s-better-soccer-benjamins-153935158.html
> ...


Ok look...  I’m tired of this pay to play issue being brought up as an excuse for Americans underperforming. That’s not why. 

Can someone google how many kids here in America are registered to play youth soccer this year?  I’m guessing it’s a hell of a lot of kids. It has to be a huge number. My point is...  we have so many kids who are registered playing soccer that you can’t tell me that only the poor kids who can’t afford it are the only good players; and that’s why America sucks. Anyone who believes this as the reason for the United States failures don’t know shit about soccer. Yea, I said it.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 10, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> It's not just P/R.  It's the salary cap too.  The NBA has been dominated in the past by a few teams (Lakers/Celtics, Bulls...maybe the Lakers/Warriors going forward). Reason they can do it is you only really need a marquee player and 2-3 supporters to build a dominant first string squad with only 5 players on the field on the time.  The MLS salary caps are very severe for supporting players...you are limited to 3 designated players and get some targeted allocation money that has to fall under the thresholds for the 3 DPS.  You cannot build a dominant squad and recruit European level talent from around the world with just 3 DPs.  For those not in DP or TAP money, the salary is just too low to tempt a US-born player away from the security of a college diploma (but it IS enough to tempt someone from T&T or Panama or Costa Rica, which is why those countries have become much more competitive in recent years).
> 
> The rest of the world does not have salary caps as severe as rigid as we do for the MLS.  The result is that in La Liga, for example, 2 teams are dominant year in and year out.  Same with Italy and Germany.  The Premiere league is it's own special beast but is also in the middle of a shakeout right now, as is English soccer (though the Premiere League by any standard is a much more global league since it's nationality caps aren't as rigid).
> 
> Fixing P/R alone, however much of a pipe dream, wouldn't be enough.  You'd have to remove the salary caps so you could build some franchise teams here willing to bring top talent to the US and offering US grown talent and incentive to turn pro.


This keeps getting better and better for the guy who’s looking to invest in the future
of soccer in America.  You pay $350 million build a stadium and another $150 million to start up your new soccer club. There’s a 10% chance you will lose your entire investment every year, unless you pay an additional 100 million a year to players good enough to protect your investment but even then there’s still a 5% chance you’ll go bankrupt by way of relegation.  But this is definitely a sound investment because you’ll generate $30 million in ticket revenue if you sell out every game at $30 a ticket.  If every single person in Sacramento also buys 5 jerseys at $5 profit per jersey, and you add in your $2 million share of the tv deals with MLS, you’ve almost made payroll for the players. No idea how you pay debt service, taxes, adminstration, utilities, $4 million for an academy, etc.

If you have a system of P/R, it isn’t possible to ever get past paying beer money to Albion Pros, who are playing in front of maybe 1000 friends, family members, the local youth club that got free tickets, plus a handful of crazy dudes whose idea of a good time is to get drunk and bang on some drums. In a P/R system in the US, the value of a professional soccer club is about $0. You can never obtain players of sufficient quality to obtain a tv deal, which is the lifeblood of a successful sports league.

My idea of buying the NFL still makes the most financial sense.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 10, 2018)

mahrez said:


> A last place team losing 5million+ a year on only 34mil in revenue with a bankrupt sponser makes sense, yeah that's a good capitalist plan.  Please


You really are stupid aren’t you. How much do  you think that little plot of land they’ve got is appreciating?  How are Albion Pros doing with their field.  That’s right, they’re renting. 

You’re also lying about their losses. Regardless, a last place team averaging 20k fans a game and $34 million in revenue seems like the best possible argument against relegation. Let’s see Albion Pros do that.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 10, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> This keeps getting better and better for the guy who’s looking to invest in the future
> of soccer in America.  You pay $350 million build a stadium and another $150 million to start up your new soccer club. There’s a 10% chance you will lose your entire investment every year, unless you pay an additional 100 million a year to players good enough to protect your investment but even then there’s still a 5% chance you’ll go bankrupt by way of relegation.  But this is definitely a sound investment because you’ll generate $30 million in ticket revenue if you sell out every game at $30 a ticket.  If every single person in Sacramento also buys 5 jerseys at $5 profit per jersey, and you add in your $2 million share of the tv deals with MLS, you’ve almost made payroll for the players. No idea how you pay debt service, taxes, adminstration, utilities, $4 million for an academy, etc.
> 
> If you have a system of P/R, it isn’t possible to ever get past paying beer money to Albion Pros, who are playing in front of maybe 1000 friends, family members, the local youth club that got free tickets, plus a handful of crazy dudes whose idea of a good time is to get drunk and bang on some drums. In a P/R system in the US, the value of a professional soccer club is about $0. You can never obtain players of sufficient quality to obtain a tv deal, which is the lifeblood of a successful sports league.
> ...


You've hit the third leg of the stool which is transfer fees.  The European system only works because of a 3 elements: P/R, transfer fees, loose salary caps.  A small club can shove off stadium costs on local government (and get nothing too fancy....besides they are mostly built now in major/medium markets) and make it's business off the transfer fees.

And as outlined in "Soccernomics", soccer is not a good investment.  With a handful of exceptions for the winning/dominant clubs, they are a money losing proposition.  The remaining teams in contention exist because of dumb money looking to smooth an ego.  That exists in the NFL and NBA too...Clippernation anyone?


----------



## mahrez (Jul 10, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> You really are stupid aren’t you. How much do  you think that little plot of land they’ve got is appreciating?  How are Albion Pros doing with their field.  That’s right, they’re renting.
> 
> You’re also lying about their losses. Regardless, a last place team averaging 20k fans a game and $34 million in revenue seems like the best possible argument against relegation. Let’s see Albion Pros do that.


Yeah your right their losing even more $ on the financing of the stadium and the +$4 million in losses since Avaya hasn't been paying for the sponsorship.

Who cars about Albion pros,  if it wasn't for the sunstone investors and there other profitable real estate holdings the quakes would be facing bankruptcy just like there main sponsor.

Hardly anybody body but locals care about San Jose quakes or the Oakland A's either but at least there near the bay area.  Too bad there both one of the wrost draws in the league on the road.  Heck Minnesota United in thier 2nd yr outraws the quakes but don't let the facts interfere with your perceived reality. Oh yeah 100m in construction cost for that stadium not 350.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jul 10, 2018)

Dr. Richard Hurtz said:


> Ok look...  I’m tired of this pay to play issue being brought up as an excuse for Americans underperforming. That’s not why.
> 
> Can someone google how many kids here in America are registered to play youth soccer this year?  I’m guessing it’s a hell of a lot of kids. It has to be a huge number. My point is...  we have so many kids who are registered playing soccer that you can’t tell me that only the poor kids who can’t afford it are the only good players; and that’s why America sucks. Anyone who believes this as the reason for the United States failures don’t know shit about soccer. Yea, I said it.


Your right. Pay to play is not the problem. It’s so much more. But it does serve as a filter.


----------



## coachsamy (Jul 11, 2018)

@InTheValley I feel you are missing the point about P/R and Albion Pros. The whole Albion Pros is a hypothetical example of a grassroots program ran by a savvy businessman, I mean after all NG is the poster child of all tracksuits! Albion Pros if P/R would happen won't jump overnight into D2 or D1(MLS). They would have to move their way up from D5 which is what they are now and along the way they would need to make right investments and attract the right sponsors. Maybe Primos won't be able to sponsor them past D3, but Classy has the revenue along with other local VC's that have close ties to NG. 

NG built the entire Albion empire out of nothing, he sugared up thousands of families to believe that giving him a mortgage payment and putting at risk their children alongside gophers and pervs in the shithole known as Robb Field, just imagine what he would be able to do if P/R was a thing. And getting to what I'm trying to convey is that there are many situations like this in which a small group of people are passionate about their local team and eventually makes it to the bigs, and because they started from scratch, their economics are not as complicated as you have many times communicated that are the factor why MLS has to protect the investment of the current members.


----------



## coachsamy (Jul 11, 2018)

Dr. Richard Hurtz said:


> Ok look...  I’m tired of this pay to play issue being brought up as an excuse for Americans underperforming. That’s not why.
> 
> Can someone google how many kids here in America are registered to play youth soccer this year?  I’m guessing it’s a hell of a lot of kids. It has to be a huge number. My point is...  we have so many kids who are registered playing soccer that you can’t tell me that only the poor kids who can’t afford it are the only good players; and that’s why America sucks. Anyone who believes this as the reason for the United States failures don’t know shit about soccer. Yea, I said it.


You are right! However between cronism, politics and mid level club raiding is causes the lack of exposure to some kids that are just as good as DA players.

The ship started sinking when Klinnsmann made the stupid decision to leave Landon Donovan out of the WC in 2014 in favor of Julian Green.


----------



## younothat (Jul 11, 2018)

Ok enough with the P2p, getting old but ever articles has to mention it. 

Here's the real reason why the US men's soccer team didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/11/world-cup-2018-us-men-soccer-team-youth-kids-sports-column/768826002/

"Pundits may place blame at the highest levels — the president of the U.S. Soccer Federation, or the coach of the national team. But maybe the problem is not at the top. Maybe it's at a local field, where kids practice in fancy uniforms under the eyes of anxious parents, hands-on coaches and vigilant referees. Kids stand in line kicking balls through cones, listening to lectures about technique and tactics.

They are not playing soccer, they´re practicing it. But soccer is a game. To learn the beautiful game, they need to play it"

Many kids are left behind in a pay-to-play system that excludes huge swathes of America´s youth. Those who can pay find themselves in ever fancier uniforms, participating in ever-more-tightly organized practices. Our kids travel for hours, often across state lines, and even across the entire country in search of “outstanding” competition, sometimes spending more time travelling than playing. What skill are they learning?

How to sit in the car.

Of course some may obtain a college scholarship, which in men´s soccer might cover the cost of books. An even tinier sliver may make it to the pro ranks. But any fan watching our men's national team in action can recognize that the products of America's "soccer industrial complex" lack the creativity and skill on the ball to be world-class.

*This could be the solution*
Just maybe, the keys to getting a U.S. men’s team to the World Cup and a child’s happiness are the same. Perhaps the quest for perfect equipment, perfect fields and perfect competition in an adult-driven system has prevented our kids from developing the skills, instincts and creativity to master the beautiful game.

To become a soccer-playing nation, we need to rethink how the game is learned and played at the grassroots level, even if it means not playing on grass at all. Because what we´re doing right now isn't working. No wonder participation has declined by around 24% in recent years.

With soccer, less may be more. In the early years, forget the drills, equipment and travel. Let the kids play on the speedy blacktops, concrete and hard-packed dirt abundant across the fruited plain. Let younger kids learn by copying older kids. The simple supervision of a YMCA, parks and recreation program or local club is all the organization needed.

The same countries where kids first learn a "shoeless" game have carefully controlled systems at higher levels. But at the grassroots, their kids are playing. Ours are not. Their kids are winning. Ours are not.

The solution is simple. The cost- and time-savings are staggering. And the organization and infrastructure already exist. Let's strip off the gear, throw out the expensive system and take soccer back to the creativity of the streets. Like Pele, let's go "shoeless."

MLS math not adding up
http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-soccer-baxter-20161029-story.html
- Major League Soccer says it drew more than 7.37 million fans this season, ... Although the league has yet to turn a profit in 21 seasons, it says ..


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 11, 2018)

younothat said:


> The same countries where kids first learn a "shoeless" game have carefully controlled systems at higher levels. But at the grassroots, their kids are playing. Ours are not. Their kids are winning. Ours are not.
> 
> The solution is simple. The cost- and time-savings are staggering. And the organization and infrastructure already exist. Let's strip off the gear, throw out the expensive system and take soccer back to the creativity of the streets. Like Pele, let's go "shoeless."
> 
> .


It's just one data point, so to be taken with a grain of salt, but the shoeless nations didn't do so well in the World Cup (if that's the goal).  Brazil and Argentina are hardly shoeless anymore and have increasingly been switching to an academy system but neither made it to the semis.  The true shoeless ones in Africa (though many of their players have picked up European training later in their careers) all got snuffed.  Panama and Costa Rica didn't do great, and largely have brought up their game in recent years because of the participation of their top players in the MLS (which is attractive to them because for them those salaries are high, unlike our players).

It will be very interesting to hear all the arguments if it winds up being England v. France in the finals.  France plays a possession style (but not like purists Spain that set a possession record but was unable to penetrate) also heavy with the counterattacks.  France's success has largely been credited to immigrants and the academy system.  England's gone the other way in recent years.  Their youngers play worse boot ball than ours (I've posted video's from my son's little English friend before (Henry Save-all)...they are all about the punting at very young ages).  Where their focus and scoring has been has been on set plays (which much of the world, including many of our coaches, ignore).  The coach even credits the NFL/NBA for inspiration.   https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl-nba-helped-inspire-englands-world-cup-semifinal-run-072743703.html

I'm really hoping England advances (they probably won't because I want them too).  Not only will we see a recreation of the 700 years war, but it will lead to fantastic arguments over the next 4 years and a reevaluation of the possession game.  Besides, France v Croatia would probably be a snooze fest.


----------



## MWN (Jul 11, 2018)

The European model has serious challenges in the American market (and a 150 year head start).  While each of the 1000's of clubs across Europe has their own beginning story, many sprung from Sporting Clubs.  These Sporting Clubs were community organizations, owned by the community focused on providing the youth and adults an opportunity to meet, socialize and exercise.  Others clubs started as just small community based businesses, financed by a few community leaders and many even offered shares to the citizens of the town.  They all played in local leagues and the "investments" were minor in the grand scheme.  100's, then 1,000's would watch the matches, and the stadiums grew gradually from a few bleachers, to a few more, to a few more.

When the English Football League was established in 1888, it started with the idea of "election" to continue in the league (a form of pro/rel) in order to compete with the other leagues and to market the league as providing best/better teams.  The EFL was not closed and would add clubs to fill the holes if clubs were not elected.  In 1889, a competing league was formed, the Football Alliance, which later merged.  The EFL made up the 1st division and the FA became the 2nd division, later in 1920, the Southern League merged and became the 3rd tier.  There wasn't pro/rel yet, but the system required reelection. 

What made all of this work were two factors: *(1) investment into the various clubs were equal; and (2) each of the clubs were "independent" entities*, competing against the other clubs.  The idea of "re-election" was fundamental to being part of the league, thus, investors in the clubs assumed this risk and managed the risks appropriately.  Please note, the MLS doesn't do this.

Over time, re-election turned into pro/rel and other leagues were added to the pyramid, which each league and club coming in having similar facilities and similar investment to the tiers above and below.  The owners of these various teams/communities bought into in the FA's concept of the football pyramid.

*U.S. Soccer / MLS - USL
*
Professional soccer in the US is really getting started about 110 years after the soccer party started.  The MLS began play in 1996.  The NASL had a run but folded because it was an economic disaster for its owners.  It's model was that investors "owned the team" and played within the league.  If the teams didn't turn a profit they were sold to another investor group and/or folded.  The league eventually folded.

Because the sporting culture of the US is not a "soccer" culture, the European model of similarly financed community clubs coming together in local leagues and forming a soccer pyramid through mergers, etc., is a non-starter.

*Former USL's Pro/Rel Petition System*
The USL in its previous form did adopt a Pro/Rel system of sorts in that it was voluntary.  Clubs that couldn't make it financially at the top level (due to financial demands of being at the top level) could petition to go down.  Clubs at the lower levels could petition to move up.  Kinda based on merit, but more out of financial stability.

*MLS is a single closed entity*
Unlike the rest of the world, the MLS formed in 1995 with the intent to actually survive by taking into account the problem with the NASL ... controlling costs, its growth, sharing most of the profits (if any) between the teams through a single entity model, and eventually engaging in a pyramid scheme funding model (franchise fees rise and are shared with the senior members).  Its a "slow growth" model designed to ensure survival for its multi-millionaire and billionaire investors.  These Owners made their millions/billions because the are actually pretty smart, they know how to manage risks and will fight tooth and nail to preserve their investments.

Arguing ... heck ... even considering the thought that the MLS ownership would adopt Pro/Rel with and risk their investments in the current landscape is absurd.  Its a non-starter (in today's economic environment).  Unless and until the MLS perceives an economic threat to its model it has no motivation to change.

*Role of the USL*
Could the USL provide that threat?  Not for a very, very long time because its owners are not on the same financial level as the MLS owners.  Moreover, the USL is infected by the MLS.  This was not by accident.  The MLS understood that the only potential threat is the USL and have placed their second teams (Galaxy II, NY Red Bulls II, Real Monarchs, etc.) AND its mutually beneficial to the MLS to work with the USL because it allows MLS teams to hang on to talent that it couldn't under the MLS roster rules.

*Pro/Rel in the USA - A Potential (but unlikely) Option*
The current landscape is not fertile for the idea of Pro/Rel to take hold.  The only way that I see it happening is that the another independent league, unsanctioned by the USSF must be formed in the U.S. by billionaires with the goal of taking on the MLS.  The only potential investors in this league are going to be European clubs that bring the Pro/Rel model and attempt to capitalize on existing goodwill of their international clubs and attempt to capitalize on the USSF's failure to adopt FIFA training and solidarity payments, which fosters the P2P system for elite athletes.  

This will not happen until one of two things occur:
   1) the US is ready for it.  It will require MLS stadiums to be filled with 40k fans, TV contracts to be in hundreds of millions (and not $60M per year) and the 2nd level to be profitable, or 
   2)  the MLS collapses and leave a void, at which point the top European teams and Latin American teams owned by billionaire groups enter the market (at a much lower price) and offer a deal to the USL owners to join as the 2nd level.

Ultimately, soccer in the US has to stand on its own as a business model.  Until it does, its not a good investment and the smart money will sit on the sidelines.


----------



## MWN (Jul 11, 2018)

younothat said:


> Ok enough with the P2p, getting old but ever articles has to mention it.
> 
> Here's the real reason why the US men's soccer team didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/07/11/world-cup-2018-us-men-soccer-team-youth-kids-sports-column/768826002/


No, no, no and no.  The real reason the US men's soccer team didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup is because *the players that were chosen for that team did not represent the "best" US National players*.  Bruce "_go with what I know_" Arena chose MLS players instead of the better and more qualified US nationals playing Internationally.  Articles like this simply demonstrate the idiocy of sports writers in America and the fact we are blind to the level of substandard play the MLS represents compared to International soccer.

Here is the USMNT that played against Trinidad Tobago and lost:
25 Players - *15 that play in the MLS* and 8 that play Internationally.

Here is the USMNT that played against Ireland and France and took France to a draw:
https://www.ussoccer.com/mens-national-team/latest-roster#tab-1
24 Players - *4 that currently play in the MLS* and 20 that play Internationally.

With regard to the rosters for Trinidad and then France:

Starting 11 for the USMNT against Trinidad Tobago (MLS players in Red):

*USA: *Howard; Yedlin, Gonzalez, Besler, Villafaña; Nagbe, Bradley, Pulisic, Arriola; Altidore, Wood.

Speaking of that French game (https://www.ussoccer.com/matches/mnt/2018/20180609-mnt-vs-france#tab-1), there was no question that the US wasn't at the same level from a time of possession and shot differential, but did well enough  that is soccer.

The lads that actually played the game (note, MLS players are in Red):
USA: 12-Zack Steffen; 18-Shaq Moore (2-DeAndre Yedlin, 74), 5-Cameron Carter-Vickers, 3-Matt Miazga (14-Erik Palmer-Brown, 57), 21-Tim Parker, 17-Antonee Robinson (19-Jorge Villafaña, 82); 4-Tyler Adams, 20-Wil Trapp (capt.), 6-Weston McKennie; 16-Julian Green (8-Joe Corona, 70), 7-Bobby Wood (13-Josh Sargent, 74)
_Substitutes: 1-Bill Hamid, 11-Tim Weah, 15-Eric Lichaj, 23-Rubio Rubin_

So what we can reasonably conclude based on the rosters and results is that playing no more than 4 MLS players might get us a tie against top competition.  Playing 6 or more MLS players and we lose.  It therefore follows that since the players on the field are the ones that actually play the game (not youth academy players) that building a USMNT from International professional players is good, more than a few MLS players is bad. 

The bigger lesson here is that the MLS is only as strong as its weakest link.  Our National Team is as strong as its weakest links.  The players train and play against each other.  We have great talent in the MLS and that talent is wasted and doesn't improve at the same level versus our talent that moves to International level 1 teams/play.

Croatia, a country of 4 million (same size as the City of Los Angeles) can field a World Cup semi-finalist team because its National team players are forged in top level leagues with top level player that play top level competition.

Good news, is we now have a GM (Ernie Stewart, a soccer guy with significant international experience), we have a new President that appreciates what he doesn't know (Gulati was delusional and a legend in his own mind) and we will have a coach that understands the MLS is a B or C level league from an international perspective and will encourage US nationals to go play with the big boys Internationally.


----------



## timbuck (Jul 11, 2018)

MWN said:


> The European model has serious challenges in the American market (and a 150 year head start).  While each of the 1000's of clubs across Europe has their own beginning story, many sprung from Sporting Clubs.  These Sporting Clubs were community organizations, owned by the community focused on providing the youth and adults an opportunity to meet, socialize and exercise.  Others clubs started as just small community based businesses, financed by a few community leaders and many even offered shares to the citizens of the town.  They all played in local leagues and the "investments" were minor in the grand scheme.  100's, then 1,000's would watch the matches, and the stadiums grew gradually from a few bleachers, to a few more, to a few more.
> 
> When the English Football League was established in 1888, it started with the idea of "election" to continue in the league (a form of pro/rel) in order to compete with the other leagues and to market the league as providing best/better teams.  The EFL was not closed and would add clubs to fill the holes if clubs were not elected.  In 1889, a competing league was formed, the Football Alliance, which later merged.  The EFL made up the 1st division and the FA became the 2nd division, later in 1920, the Southern League merged and became the 3rd tier.  There wasn't pro/rel yet, but the system required reelection.
> 
> ...


Thank you.  Promotion / Relegation sounds great to the soccer purists. But I feel it would mean the collapse of MLS (some may say this is a good thing).  It would put pro soccer in the US even further behind until it catches up again. 
There just isn’t the community support of 2nd and lower tier soccer.  Especially in markets that already have an MLS team.  The OC Blues (I think this is the team that plays at the great park) aren’t going to sell out stadiums.  In some smaller markets, without MLS teams you will get decent attendance.  Much like you will for a minor league baseball team.  But it’s more of a novelty than anything.  If ticket prices for Detroit FC increase to a level of other sports and there is no superstar player- those stands will be empty. 

Now transfer fees and training compensation could have s serious impact on soccer in the US.  But likely not for a long time.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 11, 2018)

coachsamy said:


> @InTheValley I feel you are missing the point about P/R and Albion Pros. The whole Albion Pros is a hypothetical example of a grassroots program ran by a savvy businessman, I mean after all NG is the poster child of all tracksuits! Albion Pros if P/R would happen won't jump overnight into D2 or D1(MLS). They would have to move their way up from D5 which is what they are now and along the way they would need to make right investments and attract the right sponsors. Maybe Primos won't be able to sponsor them past D3, but Classy has the revenue along with other local VC's that have close ties to NG.
> 
> NG built the entire Albion empire out of nothing, he sugared up thousands of families to believe that giving him a mortgage payment and putting at risk their children alongside gophers and pervs in the shithole known as Robb Field, just imagine what he would be able to do if P/R was a thing. And getting to what I'm trying to convey is that there are many situations like this in which a small group of people are passionate about their local team and eventually makes it to the bigs, and because they started from scratch, their economics are not as complicated as you have many times communicated that are the factor why MLS has to protect the investment of the current members.


What is the point again?  To make up the least realistic way to make the US better at soccer?  I thought I did pretty well with my NFL idea, other than it seems more realistic than the Albion empire saving American soccer. 

I get your point. Your point is that money grows on trees, although you call them “sponsors.” Of course the economics of fantasyland aren’t complicated. They’re whatever you want them to be.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 11, 2018)

mahrez said:


> Yeah your right their losing even more $ on the financing of the stadium and the +$4 million in losses since Avaya hasn't been paying for the sponsorship.
> 
> Who cars about Albion pros,  if it wasn't for the sunstone investors and there other profitable real estate holdings the quakes would be facing bankruptcy just like there main sponsor.
> 
> Hardly anybody body but locals care about San Jose quakes or the Oakland A's either but at least there near the bay area.  Too bad there both one of the wrost draws in the league on the road.  Heck Minnesota United in thier 2nd yr outraws the quakes but don't let the facts interfere with your perceived reality. Oh yeah 100m in construction cost for that stadium not 350.


I think you forgot the land value when you did your property assessment, boss.

That fact about Minnesota selling slightly more tickets than the Quakes would be a really brilliant assessment except for the fact that the average Quakes ticket is almost 3x that of a ticket in Minnesota.  Why don’t you try out a little math to figure which is better. I’ll give you a hint, which is it’s almost 3x better.


----------



## coachsamy (Jul 11, 2018)

MWN said:


> No, no, no and no.  The real reason the US men's soccer team didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup is because *the players that were chosen for that team did not represent the "best" US National players*.  Bruce "_go with what I know_" Arena chose MLS players instead of the better and more qualified US nationals playing Internationally.  Articles like this simply demonstrate the idiocy of sports writers in America and the fact we are blind to the level of substandard play the MLS represents compared to International soccer.
> 
> Here is the USMNT that played against Trinidad Tobago and lost:
> 25 Players - *15 that play in the MLS* and 8 that play Internationally.
> ...


Yes because the federation had nothing to do with giving an extra home game to Costa Rica! And talking about that game, didn't Geoff Cameron got beat continuously on that game and caused Bruce to use Omar???


----------



## coachsamy (Jul 11, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> What is the point again?  To make up the least realistic way to make the US better at soccer?  I thought I did pretty well with my NFL idea, other than it seems more realistic than the Albion empire saving American soccer.
> 
> I get your point. Your point is that money grows on trees, although you call them “sponsors.” Of course the economics of fantasyland aren’t complicated. They’re whatever you want them to be.


My point is that there is a difference between executives that expect to make 9 figures a year of a product than executives that will be happy with 7-8 figures a year and provide a quality product. MLS current system just protects greed on the top. 

Now Timmy was kind enough to point this out: "There just isn’t the community support of 2nd and lower tier soccer. "

I got to say that you are not wrong by any means. We just disagree in different aspects of economy.


----------



## MWN (Jul 11, 2018)

coachsamy said:


> Yes because the federation had nothing to do with giving an extra home game to Costa Rica! And talking about that game, didn't Geoff Cameron got beat continuously on that game and caused Bruce to use Omar???


The Costa Rica Game:

USA: 1-Tim Howard; 19-Graham Zusi (18-Jordan Morris, 84), 20-Geoff Cameron, 14-Tim Ream, 2-Jorge Villafaña (8-Clint Dempsey, 65); 10-Christian Pulisic (21-Paul Arriola, 87), 6-Darlington Nagbe, 4-Michael Bradley (capt.), 23-Fabian Johnson; 9-Bobby Wood, 17-Jozy Altidore
_Subs not used: 12-Brad Guzan, 22-Nick Rimando, 3-Omar González, 5-Matt Besler, 7-DaMarcus Beasley, 11-Alejandro Bedoya, 13-Dax McCarty, 15-Eric Lichaj, 16-Kellyn Acosta
Head coach: Bruce Arena_

5 MLS players started that game and during play, 2 International players were replaced with 2 MLS players.  Thus, MLS 7 and International 6.  So, yes.  We have to find a way to limit the mediocre MLS influence on the National Team.

Ironically, Klinnsman understood what the players needed ... stay in International leagues:

*The Mass Return Of USMNT Players To MLS Was A Catastrophic Mistake*
https://the18.com/soccer-news/jurgen-klinsmann-mls-criticism

_Klinsmann was involved in an infamous feud with MLS commissioner Don Garber following Dempsey’s decision to sign for Seattle and Bradley for Toronto. 

“[MLS] is getting better and stronger every year, which we are all very proud about, and I want everyone to grow in the environment,” said Klinsmann, “but the reality also is that for both players, making that step means that you are not in the competitive environment that you were in before.

“I made it clear with Clint’s move back and [Bradley’s] move back that it’s going to be very difficult for them to keep the same level that they experienced at the places where they were. Reality is that both players making that step means that you are not in the same competitive environment that you were before. It’s not easy for Michael, and it’s not going to be easy in the future.” _​
Let me try to draw an analogy to Youth Soccer:

Premiere League and Division 1 Leagues across Europe are like CSL Premiere, SCDSL Champions, the DA, National League.  The elite players are constantly playing and challenged by other elite players.

The MLS is like CSL Silver, SCDSL Flight 2, Presidio AA-A, AYSO Matrix/United.  The top players have an easy path.  They are not challenged day-in and day-out.  Their positions are secured and their skills stagnate.

The USSF/MLS SUM deal means that the USSF is soft on the MLS (especially Sunil G.)  because we are kinda partners from a marketing standpoint.  When Klinnsman and Don Gerger (MLS Commish) had their war of words, the USSF didn't get behind Klinnsman and say "Preach it brotha."  Instead it told Klinsmann to keep his trap shut for the good of the MLS.

The MLS will improve over the next 10 to 20 years, but the players in the MLS that have talent must rethink their priorities and move to International play if our USMNT is going to improve and compete.


----------



## mahrez (Jul 11, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> I think you forgot the land value when you did your property assessment, boss.
> 
> That fact about Minnesota selling slightly more tickets than the Quakes would be a really brilliant assessment except for the fact that the average Quakes ticket is almost 3x that of a ticket in Minnesota.  Why don’t you try out a little math to figure which is better. I’ll give you a hint, which is it’s almost 3x better.


Now your comparing the bay area to Minnesota?  Housing is what 4x,  entertainment 3x, and so forth so what. The population density is much different so is the cost of living, so what?  No comparsion, the bay area alone is worth more than the whole State of MN and almost everything is more expensive.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 11, 2018)

MWN said:


> The Costa Rica Game:
> 
> 
> 
> The MLS will improve over the next 10 to 20 years, but the players in the MLS that have talent must rethink their priorities and move to International play if our USMNT is going to improve and compete.


I agree that in the short term the best solution is for Americans to play overseas but I point out there are barriers to having that happen.  First, there's the fact that Europeans are skeptical of our players and are unlikely to give them the benefit of the doubt in trying out....breaking into that system is hard unless like Pulisic you've got some connections or have played there as a youth.  Second, there's the language barrier.  Third, there's the immigration barrier....in part because the US is tough on Europeans immigrating to the United States and working here the EU reciprocates.  Pulisic holds dual citizenship with Croatia (wonder if he regrets not playing for Croatia now?) and so was able to avoid that trap, but otherwise a European team would have to use it's very limited exceptions to bring on an American and they've just been reluctant to do that unless they need someone in particular (like a goalkeeper) or that player is something truly outstanding and a proven value.  Fourth, there's the tax barrier...the US treats income earned overseas as being earned here which (depending on the treaty with a country) can lead to double taxation as it will be taxed both by the country being played in and by the US (at a minimum, it requires hiring a tax lawyer to navigate).  Fifth, some European leagues have local national quotas (formal and informal) which means again a slot to an American would be precious and not easily given away.  So in some ways this is easier said than done.  Long term (I agree the short term is a lost cause) our biggest hope is reforming the MLS.

Two minor quibbles with your post: I don't think Howard would count as MLS given his extensive experience both playing overseas and with the US National Team (I'd have marked him mixed, or should have been disqualified for other reasons such as his age and that his style of play is no longer current)...also AYSO United plays within the various leagues and while they couldn't play DA theoretically they can play gold.


----------



## MWN (Jul 11, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> I agree that in the short term the best solution is for Americans to play overseas but I point out there are barriers to having that happen.  First, there's the fact that Europeans are skeptical of our players and are unlikely to give them the benefit of the doubt in trying out....breaking into that system is hard unless like Pulisic you've got some connections or have played there as a youth.  Second, there's the language barrier.  Third, there's the immigration barrier....in part because the US is tough on Europeans immigrating to the United States and working here the EU reciprocates.  Pulisic holds dual citizenship with Croatia (wonder if he regrets not playing for Croatia now?) and so was able to avoid that trap, but otherwise a European team would have to use it's very limited exceptions to bring on an American and they've just been reluctant to do that unless they need someone in particular (like a goalkeeper) or that player is something truly outstanding and a proven value.  Fourth, there's the tax barrier...the US treats income earned overseas as being earned here which (depending on the treaty with a country) can lead to double taxation as it will be taxed both by the country being played in and by the US (at a minimum, it requires hiring a tax lawyer to navigate).  Fifth, some European leagues have local national quotas (formal and informal) which means again a slot to an American would be precious and not easily given away.  So in some ways this is easier said than done.  Long term (I agree the short term is a lost cause) our biggest hope is reforming the MLS.
> 
> Two minor quibbles with your post: I don't think Howard would count as MLS given his extensive experience both playing overseas and with the US National Team (I'd have marked him mixed, or should have been disqualified for other reasons such as his age and that his style of play is no longer current)...also AYSO United plays within the various leagues and while they couldn't play DA theoretically they can play gold.


@Grace T. , yes and no.

1. Disagree.  Europeans are not skeptical in as much as they don't want to deal with the hassels that come with non-EU Country passport holders that are minors.  FIFA's Article 19 anti-child trafficking provisions make it near impossible for U18's to train and play for European academies.  The 2 main exceptions are EU passport holder (Pulisic and Lederman); or parents are in EU working for a totally non-soccer related reason. 

Its a business for these guys and they want the best of the best whether the kid is from Arizona or Mozambique.

2.  Language barrier is not that significant for English speakers as most Europeans and Latin American's know a little english.

3.  See 1, above.  Its not an immigration barrier as a FIFA Article 19 problem.

4. Tax implications are minor to non-existant.  US Citizens earning income abroad have two tax reductions, these are the "Foreign Earned Income Exclusion (FEIE)" and the "Foreign Tax Credit."  Basically, US Citizens are going to pay no more than they would have if they earned the income in the US.  So no double tax problem that would cause them to pay more ... unless they are being tax at a rate higher by their host country, then they pay that tax but not US tax.

5. True, quotas exist, but the top level talent always has a seat at the table.

AYSO matrix/united/??? - I know you are an AYSO gal, so lets just agree that there are always some teams that are just great and AYSO United may have a team or two that can play at the Gold or Premiere level, but the vast majority of AYSO United teams are Bronze to Silver (aka Flight 3 or 2).  See, https://coastsoccer.us/web/coastsoccer/clubs?YEAR=2017&CLUB=611&Send+Form=Go! and https://coastsoccer.us/web/coastsoccer/clubs?YEAR=2017&CLUB=982 and https://coastsoccer.us/web/coastsoccer/clubs?YEAR=2017&CLUB=983

Howard doesn't count as a European player because (1) he was playing in the MLS and (2) he would have been out of work if still in Europe and frankly should have never been on the USMNT as his time had passed as a USMNT player.  He left Europe to go back the US where he would have a job.  We have better US National's playing in Europe that should have been between the sticks and arguably, if they were the results might have been different.  Indeed, Howard is the perfect example of our F'up from a rostering point of view.  If you can't cut it in Premiere or Champions league then you should be ineligible for the USMNT.


----------



## Grace T. (Jul 11, 2018)

MWN said:


> If you can't cut it in Premiere or Champions league then you should be ineligible for the USMNT.


 great point about the trafficking rules.  I wasn’t aware. But it sets up an thorny chicken and egg problem.  I think we both concur that for Europe to take a chance on a player that player has to be more than mls caliber (ie something special). But how then does the player get to be good enough to be considered if they don’t hold a European passport?   It’s kinda like my first exec job: I’d do a great job but had no experience, but how do I get the experience if no one would hire me. 

The tax issue varies from country the country depending on treaty and for high earners the deduction is capped. I had to do a stint in the UK for a bit and it was a tax nightmare.  My sibling did one in Spain which was harder immigration wise but easier re taxes.  There’s also the issue of us nationals opening bank accounts— because of the money laundering provisions put in place after 9 11, foreign banks make it difficult to open accounts unless you hold an eu passport.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 12, 2018)

mahrez said:


> Now your comparing the bay area to Minnesota?  Housing is what 4x,  entertainment 3x, and so forth so what. The population density is much different so is the cost of living, so what?  No comparsion, the bay area alone is worth more than the whole State of MN and almost everything is more expensive.


What are you even talking about? You claimed that Quakes are going bankrupt because they sell fewer tickets than Minnesota. I simply pointed out that you’re a moron because ticket sales are irrelevant to your argument.  Instead, it’s revenue from those sales that helps determine whether a company makes money.  

The price of land has nothing to do with anything, other than its appreciating far faster in SJ, which doesn’t exactly help your argument. And the cost of living has nothing to do with whether a team turns a profit or loss. Do you want to know something that isn’t 3x as expensive in SJ, though?  Team payroll. In fact, Minnesota has a higher payroll than the Quakes. The Quakes are raking in 3x the ticket revenue with lower payroll, which is really something.  They’ve also got land interests that are far more valuable than Minnesota and which are appreciating far more quickly.


----------



## mahrez (Jul 12, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> What are you even talking about? You claimed that Quakes are going bankrupt because they sell fewer tickets than Minnesota. I simply pointed out that you’re a moron because ticket sales are irrelevant to your argument.  Instead, it’s revenue from those sales that helps determine whether a company makes money.
> 
> The price of land has nothing to do with anything, other than its appreciating far faster in SJ, which doesn’t exactly help your argument. And the cost of living has nothing to do with whether a team turns a profit or loss. Do you want to know something that isn’t 3x as expensive in SJ, though?  Team payroll. In fact, Minnesota has a higher payroll than the Quakes. The Quakes are raking in 3x the ticket revenue with lower payroll, which is really something.  They’ve also got land interests that are far more valuable than Minnesota and which are appreciating far more quickly.


Nope your arguing with yourself like you have with others in this thread.

Quakes are a money losing operation and have been for many years, their parent company sandstone has been keeping them afloat.  The stadium sponser is bankrupt and haven't been paying there licensing fees, contributing to the finanical losses.   MLS has been losing mutiple millions ever year for 20+ with no end in sight,  deep pocket parent companies and rich individual familes have keep the league going even when teams like Chivas USA lost a estimated 50 million over ten yrs before the league stepped in and took over.

If you learn to comprehend or read better we can continue.  MU a 2nd year small market team outdraws quakes like i mentioned.  End of story,  but you cant let it go & mentioned ticket prices, payrolls, etc because you have nothing else to contribute but more BS.  Do you ever post anything of value or  just more of this  nonsense like NFL.


----------



## jrcaesar (Jul 12, 2018)

MWN said:


> AYSO matrix/united/??? - I know you are an AYSO gal, so lets just agree that there are always some teams that are just great and AYSO United may have a team or two that can play at the Gold or Premiere level, but the vast majority of AYSO United teams are Bronze to Silver (aka Flight 3 or 2).


Up 'til now, most AYSO kids who would otherwise enable an AYSO team to reach Gold leave for other clubs. The new structure will keep teams and families together longer, which is good overall. But eventually the mandatory 50% playing rule is going to kick in and the teams either won't have their stars playing enough minutes or Players 6-16 will be interchangable ... but not quite good enough to compete vs. Gold teams where all 14 players are Good+, and they are playing heavy minutes. (That's the difference I see between Silver and Gold - Silver teams have 6-8 really good players, Gold teams have 12.) The road to Gold and Premiere is stacked against them.


----------



## InTheValley (Jul 12, 2018)

mahrez said:


> Nope your arguing with yourself like you have with others in this thread.
> 
> Quakes are a money losing operation and have been for many years, their parent company sandstone has been keeping them afloat.  The stadium sponser is bankrupt and haven't been paying there licensing fees, contributing to the finanical losses.   MLS has been losing mutiple millions ever year for 20+ with no end in sight,  deep pocket parent companies and rich individual familes have keep the league going even when teams like Chivas USA lost a estimated 50 million over ten yrs before the league stepped in and took over.
> 
> If you learn to comprehend or read better we can continue.  MU a 2nd year small market team outdraws quakes like i mentioned.  End of story,  but you cant let it go & mentioned ticket prices, payrolls, etc because you have nothing else to contribute but more BS.  Do you ever post anything of value or  just more of this  nonsense like NFL.


I only post the facts and the truth.  Whine all you want, but I’m just describing what is actually happening in the real world, and why.  You’re fawning over P/R like you’re looking at a photo of Kate Upton and rubbing one out. No matter how badly you want them, though, both will only ever be fantasies.  Neither your wife nor the MLS are very glamorous, that is true, but they’re what is real and the best you’re ever gonna get.


----------



## Zdrone (Jul 12, 2018)

InTheValley said:


> You’re fawning over P/R like you’re looking at a photo of Kate Upton and rubbing one out.


Wait, someone else does this?

I need a new Sports Illustrated


----------



## Justafan (Jul 12, 2018)

I swear to f’n god, this thread has the longest f’n posts of all time!  I’ve tried to follow a couple of times, stroll down a little bit, see the length of the posts, and say F’ this crap, it’s not with it and on to the next thread.


----------

