# Economics of Girls Development Academy



## SocalPapa

The President of the LA Galaxy said on the radio Wednesday that they have spent "several million dollars" fully funding their girls development academy program (including improving a soccer field).

I wondered how that could be possible.  The Galaxy is a for profit enterprise.  How do they expect to get that money back?  It's different from MLS teams that have sponsored similar boys teams.  The Seattle Sounders, for example, benefited when Jordan Morris chose to come back and play for them as a "home grown" player.  But girls DA players obviously will not play in the MLS.  (Nor will they likely earn a livable wage playing professional women's soccer.  The team cap, for all players combined, is $315,000 a year!)

So how can the Galaxy afford to invest millions of dollars for teenagers to practice soccer.  Is it marketing - do they just hope to make it up in increased licensing fees from the affiliate LA Galaxy clubs (South Bay, Orange County, San Diego)?

And what about the other clubs?  Are they fully funding their DA teams too?  If so, then I guess they've now just set in stone a policy that full-pay families have to subsidize the top players (who may have no prior connection to the club).  Is everyone okay with that?


----------



## Carpediem

Perhaps they are going for a long term goal of one day having a female soccer team in the NWSL and this is their vision to increased ticket sales, brand recognition or home growing some females of their own.   Or maybe they just follow the belief that what goes around comes around so they are giving back to the sport they make money in, ideally in hopes of a return as it is a benefit.  SoCal does have a huge youth female soccer base.  Sometimes it's not always about the initial return on investment but rather a long term one.


----------



## Striker17

SocalPapa said:


> The President of the LA Galaxy said on the radio Wednesday that they have spent "several million dollars" fully funding their girls development academy program (including improving a soccer field).
> 
> I wondered how that could be possible.  The Galaxy is a for profit enterprise.  How do they expect to get that money back?  It's different from MLS teams that have sponsored similar boys teams.  The Seattle Sounders, for example, benefited when Jordan Morris chose to come back and play for them as a "home grown" player.  But girls DA players obviously will not play in the MLS.  (Nor will they likely earn a livable wage playing professional women's soccer.  The team cap, for all players combined, is $315,000 a year!)
> 
> So how can the Galaxy afford to invest millions of dollars for teenagers to practice soccer.  Is it marketing - do they just hope to make it up in increased licensing fees from the affiliate LA Galaxy clubs (South Bay, Orange County, San Diego)?
> 
> And what about the other clubs?  Are they fully funding their DA teams too?  If so, then I guess they've now just set in stone a policy that full-pay families have to subsidize the top players (who may have no prior connection to the club).  Is everyone okay with that?


Love your post. We already subsidize the A team at every club. 
Pats are fully funded and are among a large dent in OC


----------



## Kicker4Life

Striker17 said:


> We already subsidize the A team at every club.


Come on Striker, you know that isn't true.  It may be the case with some Clubs but not "ALL".


----------



## Eagle33

Kicker4Life said:


> Come on Striker, you know that isn't true.  It may be the case with some Clubs but not "ALL".


You are correct not all, I would say 99% but there is still that 1% out there


----------



## bababooey

Yes, we already know that LA Galaxy and Pateadores are offering fully funded DA programs for their girls teams. Don't forget that LA Galaxy is owned by AEG, which is ridiculously wealthy. I doubt that LAG has spent several million dollars on the GDA, but it sure sounds altruistic. If true that they have spent several million dollars, there is a long-term plan in place (AEG won't spend that money unless they are very confident it will be recouped and then some).

As for the "lower" teams paying for the "A" teams, I think that happens very frequently. My dd is an 03 DA reserve player, which will cost me between two and three thousand dollars this year. I am okay with it and well aware that my dollars are helping subsidize other players who may be paying little or no club fees.

Lastly, what I would really love to know is how many players from the other GDA clubs are being offered free rides or very reduced prices to have their dd playing there? If my dd was a unicorn, I would be playing clubs against one another looking for the "best deal".


----------



## El Clasico

Kicker4Life said:


> Come on Striker, you know that isn't true.  It may be the case with some Clubs but not "ALL".


With all the avenues of information distribution available to parents today (other parents, blogs, boards, observations, etc.), it amuses me that there are still parents out there (and not just the U littles with their blinders) that don't know that at any mega club, their child is either on the A team or they are paying for someone else's kid who is.  I might add that there are exceptions such as the parent with the child who has no business being on the A team.  He is either paying full boat to ride the bench or he is subsidizing the guy starting in his position.

Yes, this is a generalization but it is also the reality of club soccer.  If you don't want to pay for your neighbor's kid, join a smaller club and only pay for  your child.  Otherwise, accept it for what it is.  It is nothing new and the bottom line is the A teams (particularly olders) require large budgets and someone needs to cover that cost.  You can't brag to your friends about that Surf, Slammers or Legends patch on your kid's jersey and expect not to have to pay for what makes it so special to you.

DAs is a different animal.  One would have to be a real idiot (excuse my French) to be participating in Club that has DA status and not realize that they are helping to fund that program.  I actually think most people playing for DA clubs aren't idiots and realize this.


----------



## mirage

bababooey said:


> .........Don't forget that LA Galaxy is owned by AEG, which is ridiculously wealthy. I doubt that LAG has spent several million dollars on the GDA, but it sure sounds altruistic. If true that they have spent several million dollars, there is a long-term plan in place (AEG won't spend that money unless they are very confident it will be recouped and then some)......


AEG owns several sports franchises and entertainment venue.  

The benefit can be direct or indirect.  In other words, I'm speculating, regardless of the magnitude of money spent, any amount probably was spent on some shell organization that yields tax benefits to AEG.

Most likely that there's some type of foundation setup or expensed out as an offset to the business unit's accounting (LAG).  Also publicity value to draw more fans and combined revenue for LAG must be considered.

Its a drop in a bucket, compared to what they spend in marketing.....


----------



## SocalPapa

Let me rephrase my question - 

Given up how expensive it looks like these DA programs might be compared to anything that has come before, are club parents okay with picking up that expense? And would they still be okay with that if it turns out most of the girls who make their club's DA team in the coming years did not rise up through their own club?  

Separately, for those DA clubs that have been subsidizing their "A" teams, what happens now that they've added DA on top of that structure?  Do kids who don't want to play DA (perhaps because they want to play high school soccer) now have to give up their scholarships?  Or are the clubs now funding two teams - the old "A" team and the new DA team?


----------



## Zen

Interesting to read this.  Dynamic is very different in Norcal.  ECNL is the top team for our club, and each team self-funds. My dd is on the ECNL team and I'm familiar with the fee structure.  Whether you play 100% or 20% of the time, your fee is the same.  There are scholarships here or there, but definitely not the entire top team being funded (except for one club...and may not be the entire team).


----------



## Eagle33

SocalPapa said:


> Let me rephrase my question -
> 
> Given up how expensive it looks like these DA programs might be compared to anything that has come before, are club parents okay with picking up that expense? And would they still be okay with that if it turns out most of the girls who make their club's DA team in the coming years did not rise up through their own club?
> 
> Separately, for those DA clubs that have been subsidizing their "A" teams, what happens now that they've added DA on top of that structure?  Do kids who don't want to play DA (perhaps because they want to play high school soccer) now have to give up their scholarships?  Or are the clubs now funding two teams - the old "A" team and the new DA team?


It's really simple. All DA clubs is doing right now is getting more affiliates, so they can not only support their DA but also DPL, A team or whatever else they want.


----------



## Kicker4Life

El Clasico said:


> With all the avenues of information distribution available to parents today (other parents, blogs, boards, observations, etc.), it amuses me that there are still parents out there (and not just the U littles with their blinders) that don't know that at any mega club, their child is either on the A team or they are paying for someone else's kid who is.  I might add that there are exceptions such as the parent with the child who has no business being on the A team.  He is either paying full boat to ride the bench or he is subsidizing the guy starting in his position.
> 
> Yes, this is a generalization but it is also the reality of club soccer.  If you don't want to pay for your neighbor's kid, join a smaller club and only pay for  your child.  Otherwise, accept it for what it is.  It is nothing new and the bottom line is the A teams (particularly olders) require large budgets and someone needs to cover that cost.  You can't brag to your friends about that Surf, Slammers or Legends patch on your kid's jersey and expect not to have to pay for what makes it so special to you.
> 
> DAs is a different animal.  One would have to be a real idiot (excuse my French) to be participating in Club that has DA status and not realize that they are helping to fund that program.  I actually think most people playing for DA clubs aren't idiots and realize this.


I can and will only speak to my experiences.  As a Team Manger and Treasurer I was privy to Scholarship information and never had a single "Fully Funded" player on either of my DD's teams (yes, A team). Not saying it doesn't happen, I know it does. But you can't say at "All Clubs".  That's my only point of contention.


----------



## Kicker4Life

Eagle33 said:


> It's really simple. All DA clubs is doing right now is getting more affiliates, so they can not only support their DA but also DPL, A team or whatever else they want.


So who are the Eagle, Beach, Blues & Real SoCal affiliates?


----------



## Eagle33

Kicker4Life said:


> So who are the Eagle, Beach, Blues & Real SoCal affiliates?


 Do you know for a fact that those clubs are fully funding their DA?


----------



## Eagle33

Let's see....
Real SoCal now have SCV
Beach have Long Beach and South Bay
Blues don't have anyone but they are the most expensive club as it is
Have no clue about Eagles


----------



## Striker17

Beach doesn't?! What????
They are holding out man!!


----------



## Striker17

bababooey said:


> Yes, we already know that LA Galaxy and Pateadores are offering fully funded DA programs for their girls teams. Don't forget that LA Galaxy is owned by AEG, which is ridiculously wealthy. I doubt that LAG has spent several million dollars on the GDA, but it sure sounds altruistic. If true that they have spent several million dollars, there is a long-term plan in place (AEG won't spend that money unless they are very confident it will be recouped and then some).
> 
> As for the "lower" teams paying for the "A" teams, I think that happens very frequently. My dd is an 03 DA reserve player, which will cost me between two and three thousand dollars this year. I am okay with it and well aware that my dollars are helping subsidize other players who may be paying little or no club fees.
> 
> Lastly, what I would really love to know is how many players from the other GDA clubs are being offered free rides or very reduced prices to have their dd playing there? If my dd was a unicorn, I would be playing clubs against one another looking for the "best deal".


Can't say what is at 03 but that sure as heck happened at 04. I actually encouraged the bidding war and found it to be hysterical!


----------



## jpeter

Lost leader....the financials required for fully funding or even just DA is 2-3x what normal club cost: times mutiple x  teams on the girls & boys side and it's big $$$$ bucks.

Galaxy has been spending upwords of 4 million a season for boys academy programs.  The don't own those fields, rentals for example.

Galaxy has already invested around three $million$ on girls da according to somebody I talked with recently.

Anybody what to guess what the Pats will be spending on there 10 da teams for the girls and boys?


----------



## Kicker4Life

Eagle33 said:


> Do you know for a fact that those clubs are fully funding their DA?


I know for a fact they are NOT Fully funded.


----------



## Kicker4Life

Eagle33 said:


> Let's see....
> Real SoCal now have SCV
> Beach have Long Beach and South Bay
> Blues don't have anyone but they are the most expensive club as it is
> Have no clue about Eagles


Your statement was "All DA Clubs is getting affiliates to pay for..."

Real SoCal has SCV for 2 years now
Beach LB and SB are not affiliated, they are all part of the same Club run by a single DOC
Blues - no affiliate
Eagles - no affilate

I am 100% in agreement that SOME DA clubs are doing this, but not ALL!


----------



## Kicker4Life

Striker17 said:


> Beach doesn't?! What????
> They are holding out man!!


Nope


----------



## smellycleats

Carpediem said:


> Perhaps they are going for a long term goal of one day having a female soccer team in the NWSL and this is their vision to increased ticket sales, brand recognition or home growing some females of their own.   Or maybe they just follow the belief that what goes around comes around so they are giving back to the sport they make money in, ideally in hopes of a return as it is a benefit.  SoCal does have a huge youth female soccer base.  Sometimes it's not always about the initial return on investment but rather a long term one.


I think this is a very optimistic but naive perspective.


----------



## Striker17

So what do you think about that? Could it be Beach is the last merit based club in SoCal? 
Honestly if you say that you do not see that at all then I think it is.


----------



## SocalPapa

bababooey said:


> I doubt that LAG has spent several million dollars on the GDA, but it sure sounds altruistic. If true that they have spent several million dollars, there is a long-term plan in place (AEG won't spend that money unless they are very confident it will be recouped and then some).


I stand corrected.  I found the interview on line and I had misremembered what LAG President Chris Klein said.  He only mentioned that it was "fully funded" and that they had spent "over a million dollars" on the training field.  He didn't say what the total budget is.

The interview is an interesting listen for anyone following girls DA.  It was the 8/16/17 broadcast of Soccer Weekly on ESPN 710.  The discussion starts at 19:35 and ends at 20:55.  You can find it here:  http://www.espn.com/espnradio/podcast/archive/_/id/17221959


----------



## mbeach

Kicker4Life said:


> Nope


Actually, the club fee for DA players at Beach is slightly higher than the fee for girls playing in other teams of the same age group.  And as far as I know every 03 in my daughter's DA team pays the fee, except perhaps one or two girls from low income families. For example, I do know that the best 03 player in the team pays the fee, and she has been at Beach for a few years now. I also know for a fact that one of the very few players (4) that made the team from another club also pays, and she is one of our best players who could have played anywhere else if she wanted. I also have a younger daughter who is the best player of her age in the club, and I pay the full fee for her too.
There may be some girls at Beach FC that can pay and don't, but based on my experience they are very, very few.


----------



## Lambchop

El Clasico said:


> With all the avenues of information distribution available to parents today (other parents, blogs, boards, observations, etc.), it amuses me that there are still parents out there (and not just the U littles with their blinders) that don't know that at any mega club, their child is either on the A team or they are paying for someone else's kid who is.  I might add that there are exceptions such as the parent with the child who has no business being on the A team.  He is either paying full boat to ride the bench or he is subsidizing the guy starting in his position.
> 
> Yes, this is a generalization but it is also the reality of club soccer.  If you don't want to pay for your neighbor's kid, join a smaller club and only pay for  your child.  Otherwise, accept it for what it is.  It is nothing new and the bottom line is the A teams (particularly olders) require large budgets and someone needs to cover that cost.  You can't brag to your friends about that Surf, Slammers or Legends patch on your kid's jersey and expect not to have to pay for what makes it so special to yo
> DAs is a different animal.  One would have to be a real idiot (excuse my French) to be participating in Club that has DA status and not realize that the
> There are new DA clubs that are not fully funding the program and the players pay as much as the rest of the club!  Wish all the DA programs were "fully funded".


----------



## mirage

SocalPapa said:


> .......Given up how expensive it looks like these DA programs might be compared to anything that has come before, are club parents okay with picking up that expense? And would they still be okay with that if it turns out most of the girls who make their club's DA team in the coming years did not rise up through their own club?.........


Based on what I've heard ECNL parents talk about what they really pay for the total season (including travel to showcases), DA should be about the same.  The cost will go up with age because on the top of showcases, there will be away league games (e.g., SW teams playing vs NW, so up and down the coast).

As for another club players making your DA team, very few have loyalty towards their own players (by action, not words).  Additionally, the structure of DA is purposely design to have fewer DA clubs as players get older.  While phase 1 is to setup the initial DA clubs, if they follow the boys model, they will add U12 and U13 only DA clubs as well as give current DA clubs lower ages.  USSF wants funneling effect as players get older so they compete for roster spots, and refine the player pool.

So its expected that players from other clubs make each DA team, every year.


----------



## Dos Equis

jpeter said:


> Galaxy has already invested around three $million$ on girls da according to somebody I talked with recently.


Absolutely no way this is possible, unless they had the girls DA program pay AEG $2.75 million for the right to use the Galaxy name.  

That anyone would believe a program that is roughly 4 months old (in the case of the Galaxy DA) has spent $3 million is troubling.   If they spend $3 milliom over the course of the first 5 years of the program, that might be possible.  Anyone who has ever done any budgeting for a club soccer program knows this preposterous.  Allocating 100% of the cost of renovating a field, even if it is only being used by the girls (please let us know if that is the case), still would not come close to this number.

Unfortunately,  not surprising the Galaxy would make this ridiculous claim.


----------



## Hdyldemapples

mbeach said:


> Actually, the club fee for DA players at Beach is slightly higher than the fee for girls playing in other teams of the same age group.  And as far as I know every 03 in my daughter's DA team pays the fee, except perhaps one or two girls from low income families. For example, I do know that the best 03 player in the team pays the fee, and she has been at Beach for a few years now. I also know for a fact that one of the very few players (4) that made the team from another club also pays, and she is one of our best players who could have played anywhere else if she wanted. I also have a younger daughter who is the best player of her age in the club, and I pay the full fee for her too.
> There may be some girls at Beach FC that can pay and don't, but based on my experience they are very, very few.


All true!!


----------



## timbuck

Dos Equis said:


> Absolutely no way this is possible, unless they had the girls DA program pay AEG $2.75 million for the right to use the Galaxy name.
> 
> That anyone would believe a program that is roughly 4 months old (in the case of the Galaxy DA) has spent $3 million is troubling.   If they spend $3 milliom over the course of the first 5 years of the program, that might be possible.  Anyone who has ever done any budgeting for a club soccer program knows this preposterous.  Allocating 100% of the cost of renovating a field, even if it is only being used by the girls (please let us know if that is the case), still would not come close to this number.
> 
> Unfortunately,  not surprising the Galaxy would make this ridiculous claim.


Were they planning a field renovation anyway? Easy to say "we spent $1 million on this field...". When they were already planning to spend $1.5 million anyway. (I'm just making this up. I have no idea if this was planned or if they had a budget).


----------



## LASTMAN14

timbuck said:


> Were they planning a field renovation anyway? Easy to say "we spent $1 million on this field...". When they were already planning to spend $1.5 million anyway. (I'm just making this up. I have no idea if this was planned or if they had a budget).


Yes, field 7 at Stub Hub was in poor condition. LAG often used it as a parking lot for games (why anyone would park on a turf field who knows) and it needed to be resurfaced. The girls DA more than likely prompted its renovation.


----------



## Livinthedream

mbeach said:


> Actually, the club fee for DA players at Beach is slightly higher than the fee for girls playing in other teams of the same age group.  And as far as I know every 03 in my daughter's DA team pays the fee, except perhaps one or two girls from low income families. For example, I do know that the best 03 player in the team pays the fee, and she has been at Beach for a few years now. I also know for a fact that one of the very few players (4) that made the team from another club also pays, and she is one of our best players who could have played anywhere else if she wanted. I also have a younger daughter who is the best player of her age in the club, and I pay the full fee for her too.
> There may be some girls at Beach FC that can pay and don't, but based on my experience they are very, very few.


Every player pays...however Beach offers Player Scholarships (if a player qualifies) with a max of $500. For the DA teams, USSDA offers scholarships to any DA player that financially qualifies...look it up. Sometimes parents will take their DD to the best program (that works for the family) then the lower cost alternative.


----------



## Striker17

So Beach does offer scholarships? 
I didn't believe they wouldn't based on geography. 

DA of course does that's obvious. 

I believe what we were referring to was the number of girls playing DA either fully funded or at a club that isn't fully funded but getting a full ride due to skill.


----------



## mbeach

Striker17 said:


> So Beach does offer scholarships?
> I didn't believe they wouldn't based on geography.
> 
> DA of course does that's obvious.
> 
> I believe what we were referring to was the number of girls playing DA either fully funded or at a club that isn't fully funded but getting a full ride due to skill.


Beach does not give a full (or fractional) ride to players due to skill (unless her family cannot afford it). As I said before I know of several girls that are the best players in their "A" teams and they are paying the full fee. I also know of an A team, a Surf Cup winner, where absolutely everybody pays the fee.  And I also know of at least two "stud" players that came from other clubs to Beach who are paying. There may be a couple of players in the club getting a full ride due to skill (I do not know them), but as far as I can tell giving a free ride is not a tool that the club uses to recruit players or to keep existing ones.


----------



## El Clasico

LASTMAN14 said:


> Yes, field 7 at Stub Hub was in poor condition. LAG often used it as a parking lot for games (why anyone would park on a turf field who knows) and it needed to be resurfaced. The girls DA more than likely prompted its renovation.


If I understand you correctly, field 7 has already been resurfaced?  If that is the case, nobody put $1,000,000 into that field.  It is the worst field at the facility.  It isn't even turf, it is that green outdoor carpet material.


----------



## SocalPapa

El Clasico said:


> If I understand you correctly, field 7 has already been resurfaced?  If that is the case, nobody put $1,000,000 into that field.  It is the worst field at the facility.  It isn't even turf, it is that green outdoor carpet material.


The new surface of Field 7 is (or shortly will be) a high quality turf system. Details of the renovation are in this LA Galaxy press release.  http://3blmedia.com/News/LA-Galaxy-Invest-1-Million-Enhance-Girls-Academy-Training-Fields-StubHub-Center


----------



## LASTMAN14

El Clasico said:


> If I understand you correctly, field 7 has already been resurfaced?  If that is the case, nobody put $1,000,000 into that field.  It is the worst field at the facility.  It isn't even turf, it is that green outdoor carpet material.


Field 7 was resurfaced about 5 weeks ago. It was about a $1,000,000 to replace. It was the worst field, but now it is very nice and I believe the biggest in length and width. The quality is very good for turf and uses a new pellet to keep the turf from becoming brittle. No more carcinogenic black pellets.


----------



## LASTMAN14

SocalPapa said:


> The new surface of Field 7 is (or shortly will be) a high quality turf system. Details of the renovation are in this LA Galaxy press release.  http://3blmedia.com/News/LA-Galaxy-Invest-1-Million-Enhance-Girls-Academy-Training-Fields-StubHub-Center


Just read the article. Forgot to mention they put in lights.


----------



## El Clasico

LASTMAN14 said:


> Field 7 was resurfaced about 5 weeks ago. It was about a $1,000,000 to replace. It was the worst field, but now it is very nice and I believe the biggest in length and width. The quality is very good for turf and uses a new pellet to keep the turf from becoming brittle. No more carcinogenic black pellets.


I could be mistaken on the field number. Maybe the one I am referring to is not field 7. I was referring to the field directly opposite the Velodrome and actually shares the same parking lot as the Velodrome. I don't care what any press release says about what was spent to re-surface it, I have been there every week for the last month and I can't tell the difference between that 2 tone Pollack and the stuff that is glued down on my grandma's porch.


----------



## espola

LASTMAN14 said:


> Field 7 was resurfaced about 5 weeks ago. It was about a $1,000,000 to replace. It was the worst field, but now it is very nice and I believe the biggest in length and width. The quality is very good for turf and uses a new pellet to keep the turf from becoming brittle. No more carcinogenic black pellets.


Carcinogenic?  Reference?


----------



## LASTMAN14

El Clasico said:


> I could be mistaken on the field number. Maybe the one I am referring to is not field 7. I was referring to the field directly opposite the Velodrome and actually shares the same parking lot as the Velodrome. I don't care what any press release says about what was spent to re-surface it, I have been there every week for the last month and I can't tell the difference between that 2 tone Pollack and the stuff that is glued down on my grandma's porch.


I too have been there the last month 3x a week. I like the turf they put in. But I do prefer the turf at Toyota Center.


----------



## ajaxahi

Striker17 said:


> So what do you think about that? Could it be Beach is the last merit based club in SoCal?
> Honestly if you say that you do not see that at all then I think it is.


LAGSB doesn't offer scholarships either for their "A" teams with the occasional exception based on need.  My dd is in her fourth year on LAGSB "A" teams and I have been fine paying full freight in exchange for quality player development and a high level training environment. My guess is the clubs with all the "A" team scholarships are the same ones that build teams primarily based on recruiting.


----------



## Dos Equis

mbeach said:


> Beach does not give a full (or fractional) ride to players due to skill (unless her family cannot afford it). As I said before I know of several girls that are the best players in their "A" teams and they are paying the full fee. I also know of an A team, a Surf Cup winner, where absolutely everybody pays the fee.  And I also know of at least two "stud" players that came from other clubs to Beach who are paying. There may be a couple of players in the club getting a full ride due to skill (I do not know them), but as far as I can tell giving a free ride is not a tool that the club uses to recruit players or to keep existing ones.


While it has been  couple of years, the last "scholarship application" I saw for Beach was capped at less then 1/3 of club fees, and was based on financial need.  Other clubs in the South Bay have similar programs.  That does not restrict teams from providing additional assisitance, sometimes based on skills, not financial need.

Having said that, the DA program was supposed to provide a higher level of financial assistance for players with need, including full scholarships.  Commiting to that was part of the application every DOC signed.  Giving the best players (regardless of household income) access to top level coaching was a primary goal of the DA.  If Beach is not doing so, that would be a failure to live up to the goals of the DA program.  I expect (and hope) the are doing so, and the rest of the club funds it.  I also expect no one would advertise that fact, but if you do not like it, you have choices.


----------



## mbeach

Dos Equis said:


> While it has been  couple of years, the last "scholarship application" I saw for Beach was capped at less then 1/3 of club fees, and was based on financial need.  Other clubs in the South Bay have similar programs.  That does not restrict teams from providing additional assisitance, sometimes based on skills, not financial need.
> 
> Having said that, the DA program was supposed to provide a higher level of financial assistance for players with need, including full scholarships.  Commiting to that was part of the application every DOC signed.  Giving the best players (regardless of household income) access to top level coaching was a primary goal of the DA.  If Beach is not doing so, that would be a failure to live up to the goals of the DA program.  I expect (and hope) the are doing so, and the rest of the club funds it.  I also expect no one would advertise that fact, but if you do not like it, you have choices.


The Beach DA players are coached by the top coaches at the club. I do not think that anybody would argue that.
I assume that deserving players that come from low income households are getting a full or almost full ride, but I do not have direct information to confirm it.
There is obviously partial funding of the DA program by the club, if only because these girls practice twice as much as the regular players while paying just a marginally higher fee.
The main point of these posts was to dismiss the belief of some posters that if "your daughter is not a DA player in a DA club, you should know that the club is stealing your money to pay for the DA program". The DA players are paying a very large part of their share.


----------



## MakeAPlay

ajaxahi said:


> LAGSB doesn't offer scholarships either for their "A" teams with the occasional exception based on need.  My dd is in her fourth year on LAGSB "A" teams and I have been fine paying full freight in exchange for quality player development and a high level training environment. My guess is the clubs with all the "A" team scholarships are the same ones that build teams primarily based on recruiting.


Sorry to jump in but my question is this.  If a unicorn showed up and the parents refused to pay anything other than travel and they had no financial need the club would tell them to kick rocks?

Just a question.  I have never seen ANY club tell them to kick rocks in my 10 years of dealing with club soccer.  Just curious and not an attack.


----------



## El Clasico

Rather surprised myself at some of these responses. I know that clubs are very discreet when it comes to funding a star player but the responses by some of these posters helps explain why Club Soccer is the way that it is.

There is a player on our team that is fully funded.  He is more than capable of paying his way but he doesn't. Club is discreet about it.  The team busybody, aka: team manager, doesn't know. The manager is the last person you want knowing, they have the team's ear and they usually talk too much.

Is it possible that so many people don't realize that there are people on their team that pays a reduced amount or doesn't pay at all?


----------



## Kicker4Life

MakeAPlay said:


> Sorry to jump in but my question is this.  If a unicorn showed up and the parents refused to pay anything other than travel and they had no financial need the club would tell them to kick rocks?
> 
> Just a question.  I have never seen ANY club tell them to kick rocks in my 10 years of dealing with club soccer.  Just curious and not an attack.


Can't disagree. Sometimes the parents agree to all pitch in and cover. Key point....parents agree...not a club decision to subsidize, but a group decision amongst families.


----------



## Real Deal

MakeAPlay said:


> Sorry to jump in but my question is this.  If a unicorn showed up and the parents refused to pay anything other than travel and they had no financial need the club would tell them to kick rocks?
> 
> Just a question.  I have never seen ANY club tell them to kick rocks in my 10 years of dealing with club soccer.  Just curious and not an attack.


I just think there may be some unicorn parents willing to pay and some who are not.  And yes, the squeaky unicorn hooves always get the grease.


----------



## MaradonaDiego90301

MakeAPlay said:


> Sorry to jump in but my question is this.  If a unicorn showed up and the parents refused to pay anything other than travel and they had no financial need the club would tell them to kick rocks?
> 
> Just a question.  I have never seen ANY club tell them to kick rocks in my 10 years of dealing with club soccer.  Just curious and not an attack.


Next time you threaten someone of showing up to meet, do it bitch!

I was out there waiting for your hubby so I could smack the shit out of him.

I was gonna smack him so hard the cops would be able to take my finger prints off his fuckin face.

Coward.

- Simon


----------



## Real Deal

Real Deal said:


> I just think there may be some unicorn parents willing to pay and some who are not.  And yes, the squeaky unicorn hooves always get the grease.


And honestly, if you want free DA, then go to a free DA.  If you are a subsidized player on a paid academy, and it is for "skill,"  then your kid better be prepared to prove that "skill" day in and day out.  Good luck with that.  That would be a reason for some "unicorn" parents willing to pay for a quality training program-- from clubs like Blues, Surf, Beach, etc etc...  there really are not a lot of free rides out there on the high quality merry-go-rounds.  Maybe a couple, but not the norm.


----------



## Livinthedream

MaradonaDiego90301 said:


> Next time you threaten someone of showing up to meet, do it bitch!
> 
> I was out there waiting for your hubby so I could smack the shit out of him.
> 
> I was gonna smack him so hard the cops would be able to take my finger prints off his fuckin face.
> 
> Coward.
> 
> - Simon


Wow! You must workout...cyber bully 101. We thought you were 86'd off the forum, now you pop up with a new name and same rant. Dude get a life.


----------



## MakeAPlay

MaradonaDiego90301 said:


> Next time you threaten someone of showing up to meet, do it bitch!
> 
> I was out there waiting for your hubby so I could smack the shit out of him.
> 
> I was gonna smack him so hard the cops would be able to take my finger prints off his fuckin face.
> 
> Coward.
> 
> - Simon


Check your inbox @MaradonaDiego90301.


----------



## MaradonaDiego90301

MakeAPlay said:


> Check your inbox @MaradonaDiego90301.


I don't have time for your games pig.

You sell a lot of wolf tickets tho. Living off your daughter's life. Loser.


----------



## timbuck

I was talking with someone who was/is a high level player. Played for a big girls club, high school and at a Pac 12 school on a full ride.
She asked me what it costs today to play club soccer. She was shocked that costs are between $2k and $3k for most kids. (Regardless of A team or B team).
She thought her parents paid about $500 a year back when she played. (Early 2000s/late 90s in club).


----------



## MaradonaDiego90301

Livinthedream said:


> Wow! You must workout...cyber bully 101. We thought you were 86'd off the forum, now you pop up with a new name and same rant. Dude get a life.


Stop crying lame. With your soft ovaries and weak ass college soccer.


----------



## espola

Kicker4Life said:


> Can't disagree. Sometimes the parents agree to all pitch in and cover. Key point....parents agree...not a club decision to subsidize, but a group decision amongst families.


I have seen players paid for by the coach (owned his own business and looked at it as investing his coaching salary), by the manager (husband owned his own business), and by the club (scholarship based on need without regard for skill - although the coach's recommendation was part of the process), and by the parent of another player (who wanted to keep the player on his kid's team).


----------



## Striker17

mbeach said:


> The Beach DA players are coached by the top coaches at the club. I do not think that anybody would argue that.
> I assume that deserving players that come from low income households are getting a full or almost full ride, but I do not have direct information to confirm it.
> There is obviously partial funding of the DA program by the club, if only because these girls practice twice as much as the regular players while paying just a marginally higher fee.
> The main point of these posts was to dismiss the belief of some posters that if "your daughter is not a DA player in a DA club, you should know that the club is stealing your money to pay for the DA program". The DA players are paying a very large part of their share.


No one used the phrase stealing. No one said that. It is extremely naive to not address the actual business of club soccer and the financial impact of. DA on these clubs. The DA who will do well will be the big clubs. The players fee is A VERY SMALL PART of what it costs to run and maintain a successful DA program. 

Take emotion out of this. A kid on a C team is a revenue player for a club- there is really no discussion on that. The clubs who are large with a steady stream of revenue and even affiliates will do well in this new system. 

If my child was the unicorn and Legends offered her full ride and so did Pats and both have good coaches why not? They aren't "selling". They are massive organizations who can afford this. 

DE is correct- providing a DA that is subsidized and affords all players access was the goal. What I am surprised about given your geographical area is that you do not provide free scholarships and only a 500$. I believe you and I am not knocking it but I am extremely surprised Beach would be missing out on a golden baller who simply couldn't afford to play. Maybe that's why LAPFC got some good talent?


----------



## Striker17

And so beware of fake posters who knock other programs on here because they are affiliated with one who doesn't give money out, or could not match another person in a bidding war. 
Some of the particular teams are no longer in their glory and so they are trying to dismiss rival academies who can support and maintain a DA program properly. Parents should research the coaches and the academy. If you have an 05 and they are acting like it's just business as usual and it's just another year then run- you are at the wrong place. 
Giving money out doesn't make you evil or a lesser club- just like playing long ball doesn't make you a bad soccer player. Parents who search for the best deal again I have respect for because this is a huge committment. It's a life changing one honestly and I respect the time and effort some people put into this. I also respect that a lot of families are seeing this as a long term choice and relationship. 
There are many ways to get perks at clubs and the fees are a small part of it. Maybe the fee was high but they are getting subsides. The poster who wrote about being discreet was right on the money.  
There is something to be said for clubs who have embraced this academy system and tried to do the right thing with field space, education, financials, training. Now you all know what a huge Beach fan I am so this isn't a knock on any of you but other people with their bias are now treading around and it's too early for fake news


----------



## Striker17

El Clasico said:


> Rather surprised myself at some of these responses. I know that clubs are very discreet when it comes to funding a star player but the responses by some of these posters helps explain why Club Soccer is the way that it is.
> 
> There is a player on our team that is fully funded.  He is more than capable of paying his way but he doesn't. Club is discreet about it.  The team busybody, aka: team manager, doesn't know. The manager is the last person you want knowing, they have the team's ear and they usually talk too much.
> 
> Is it possible that so many people don't realize that there are people on their team that pays a reduced amount or doesn't pay at all?


Kicker is Treausurer so he would know which is why I didn't question it and was profoundly surprised. 
I was also in that position and we had MULTIPLE full scholarships for kids who could absolutely pay. They wouldn't even pay tourney fees and the club absorbed them. All have since quit soccer it's maddening. I learned early on to never include parents in money discussions and to keep everything at the highest level.


----------



## Striker17

MakeAPlay said:


> Sorry to jump in but my question is this.  If a unicorn showed up and the parents refused to pay anything other than travel and they had no financial need the club would tell them to kick rocks?
> 
> Just a question.  I have never seen ANY club tell them to kick rocks in my 10 years of dealing with club soccer.  Just curious and not an attack.


What happened this year with several unicorns in my local herd was they started a unicorn bidding war and went to the club who gave them the most. As stated I personally enjoyed the unicorn bidding war. The club who lost was aghast and of course threw a temper tantrum and the name calling ensued. Sorry but I found it funny as the coach and club is traditionally unscrupulous with recruiting etc. 
For the first time in a long time the families were in total control and I enjoyed it .


----------



## LASTMAN14

MakeAPlay said:


> Sorry to jump in but my question is this.  If a unicorn showed up and the parents refused to pay anything other than travel and they had no financial need the club would tell them to kick rocks?
> 
> Just a question.  I have never seen ANY club tell them to kick rocks in my 10 years of dealing with club soccer.  Just curious and not an attack.


I help can help answer for Ajaxahi (as our kids are on the same team). He's right very few scholarships are given out, but often if a player is in need because the family can not afford all or just some of the fee our coaches in the past have covered the costs and some assistance from the club in the form of a discount. In fact a few years ago one of our coaches funded close to a third of his boys team.


----------



## LASTMAN14

LASTMAN14 said:


> I help can help answer for Ajaxahi (as our kids are on the same team). He's right very few scholarships are given out, but often if a player is in need because the family can not afford all or just some of the fee our coaches in the past have covered the costs and some assistance from the club in the form of a discount. In fact a few years ago one of our coaches funded close to a third of his boys team.


Sorry, I still did not answer the question. Yes, I think our coaches would help out that player in that situation and who we would consider a top talent.


----------



## mbeach

Striker17 said:


> And so beware of fake posters who knock other programs on here because they are affiliated with one who doesn't give money out, or could not match another person in a bidding war.
> Some of the particular teams are no longer in their glory and so they are trying to dismiss rival academies who can support and maintain a DA program properly. Parents should research the coaches and the academy. If you have an 05 and they are acting like it's just business as usual and it's just another year then run- you are at the wrong place.
> Giving money out doesn't make you evil or a lesser club- just like playing long ball doesn't make you a bad soccer player. Parents who search for the best deal again I have respect for because this is a huge committment. It's a life changing one honestly and I respect the time and effort some people put into this. I also respect that a lot of families are seeing this as a long term choice and relationship.
> There are many ways to get perks at clubs and the fees are a small part of it. Maybe the fee was high but they are getting subsides. The poster who wrote about being discreet was right on the money.
> There is something to be said for clubs who have embraced this academy system and tried to do the right thing with field space, education, financials, training. Now you all know what a huge Beach fan I am so this isn't a knock on any of you but other people with their bias are now treading around and it's too early for fake news


Not knocking on anything, as the comments  remain civil so far. The argument started because of the following comments:

Post#3: "Love your post. We already subsidize the A team at every club."
Post#5:  "You are correct not all, I would say 99% but there is still that 1% out there."
Post#7: "With all the avenues of information distribution available to parents today (other parents, blogs, boards, observations, etc.), it amuses me that there are still parents out there (and not just the U littles with their blinders) that don't know that at any mega club, their child is either on the A team or they are paying for someone else's kid who is". 

Kicker and I have responded that this is not true at Beach, in the sense that most or any significant number of players in their A teams do not get a free ride based only on skill. I cannot say if this is true at other clubs, I have no knowledge about it.  
Do some teams at Beach get subsidized by other teams? Maybe, but not in the form of full rides. Before this year all girls practiced the same number of days, in the same fields (maybe an exception could have been the old academy teams, which may have practiced one more day and had the top coaches, but I do not know for sure). Furthermore, I have seen what people call top coaches (e.g. Mauricio and Anton Arrache), train flight II teams. I suspect that now the DA teams are getting partially subsidized, in the form of the fee paid by these players not fully covering  the extra number of hours of practice.  
I think that the argument about giving extra DA scholarships to girls from lower income families is mute. Those scholarships exist from US soccer; and I am also sure that any DA club will not miss on any deserving "poor" player, the clubs will pay for them.
Regarding the argument about whether big clubs should subsidize their DA program using revenue from other teams, not only I agree with it but when we began talking about it last Winter I added that in exchange, the clubs should commit to keeping a large (but not all) % of DA slots reserved to players developed by the club (so that subsidizing families were happily on board, and to make sure that the clubs commit to development at the younger ages). I was laughed off by the usual suspects. One could argue how much subsidy should there be: a full or fractional ride for every DA player? In the case of Beach, it seems that the managers of the club have decided (I have not talked to them about this, I am just speculating) that every player in the club from a family wealthy enough to pay, will pay the same amount, the standard club fee. When I first read the DA application, I expected that a large club like Beach should commit to fully funding the DA program (for my own benefit and to ensure a successful bid). However, I think that a partial subsidy in which every player in the club pays the same amount stands on "higher moral ground".    
And I am aware that if I do not like this model, I can go elsewhere with a fully subsidized DA program.


----------



## Dos Equis

mbeach said:


> Not knocking on anything, as the comments  remain civil so far. The argument started because of the following comments:
> 
> Post#3: "Love your post. We already subsidize the A team at every club."
> Post#5:  "You are correct not all, I would say 99% but there is still that 1% out there."
> Post#7: "With all the avenues of information distribution available to parents today (other parents, blogs, boards, observations, etc.), it amuses me that there are still parents out there (and not just the U littles with their blinders) that don't know that at any mega club, their child is either on the A team or they are paying for someone else's kid who is".
> 
> Kicker and I have responded that this is not true at Beach, in the sense that most or any significant number of players in their A teams do not get a free ride based only on skill. I cannot say if this is true at other clubs, I have no knowledge about it.
> Do some teams at Beach get subsidized by other teams? Maybe, but not in the form of full rides. Before this year all girls practiced the same number of days, in the same fields (maybe an exception could have been the old academy teams, which may have practiced one more day and had the top coaches, but I do not know for sure). Furthermore, I have seen what people call top coaches (e.g. Mauricio and Anton Arrache), train flight II teams. I suspect that now the DA teams are getting partially subsidized, in the form of the fee paid by these players not fully covering  the extra number of hours of practice.
> I think that the argument about giving extra DA scholarships to girls from lower income families is mute. Those scholarships exist from US soccer; and I am also sure that any DA club will not miss on any deserving "poor" player, the clubs will pay for them.
> Regarding the argument about whether big clubs should subsidize their DA program using revenue from other teams, not only I agree with it but when we began talking about it last Winter I added that in exchange, the clubs should commit to keeping a large (but not all) % of DA slots reserved to players developed by the club (so that subsidizing families were happily on board, and to make sure that the clubs commit to development at the younger ages). I was laughed off by the usual suspects. One could argue how much subsidy should there be: a full or fractional ride for every DA player? In the case of Beach, it seems that the managers of the club have decided (I have not talked to them about this, I am just speculating) that every player in the club from a family wealthy enough to pay, will pay the same amount, the standard club fee. When I first read the DA application, I expected that a large club like Beach should commit to fully funding the DA program (for my own benefit and to ensure a successful bid). However, I think that a partial subsidy in which every player in the club pays the same amount stands on "higher moral ground".
> And I am aware that if I do not like this model, I can go elsewhere with a fully subsidized DA program.


Unless policy has changed, the US Soccer scholarships for DA are for player travel only, not for club fees, so there is a need for club support for families with financial needs. It was also very much a part of the commitment each club made to be selected to the DA.  

Wherever one thinks the moral high ground may be, I am fine with a more "progressive" system where families who can afford it pay a little more, so others less able to can participate -- but everyone pays something.  I understand not everyone feels that way, but as you correctly point out, there are plenty of options to find the place that fits your goals.  

In my experience, families who search for (and receive) the most money have the shortest longevity with a club.  People do not appreciate what they do not have to pay for.


----------



## younothat

The high cost of club soccer is even more so in USSDA is one of the biggest problems with youth soccer in the US.

Costs are not just out of pocket,  commute, travel, opportunities missed for other things, etc.

Unless you have deep pockets with a corporate backers; AEG, LAFC, Bara Academy,  and or sponsors/partnerships getting more difficult to  compete.  F.C. Golden State has partnered with SOLTILO in that vain.

Some of clubs may find it difficult to keep academy going and players staying because they simply don't have enough resources long term,  for the boys almost like two tiers;  those /w  adequate resources and sponsorship and those without.  Not many P2P teams at the top of the tables or making the playoffs for example.

"Pay to play is an identified problem because it filters out talent from reaching the higher levels of the game"

Besides the high costs the next biggest problem is the lack of promotion and relegation

http://blog.3four3.com/2015/09/14/pay-to-play-and-the-link-to-promotion-relegation/







 .

Club soccer for the most part is a illusion that pretends to be something its not

The whole home town club scene has been replaced with franchises and affiliates, they may call them self a club but operate on a franchise/affiliate model.

The Illusion goes all the way to pro soccer, MLS doesn't really have clubs what they have is franchises that are part of company MLS IIC

FC Cincinnati in the USL is a actual club based in Ohio and they went all the way to the semi finals before barely getting beat in OT by the NY Redbulls and MLS in the US open club.

Many are called but few are chosen is what club soccer reminds me of.


----------



## Striker17

mbeach said:


> Not knocking on anything, as the comments  remain civil so far. The argument started because of the following comments:
> 
> Post#3: "Love your post. We already subsidize the A team at every club."
> Post#5:  "You are correct not all, I would say 99% but there is still that 1% out there."
> Post#7: "With all the avenues of information distribution available to parents today (other parents, blogs, boards, observations, etc.), it amuses me that there are still parents out there (and not just the U littles with their blinders) that don't know that at any mega club, their child is either on the A team or they are paying for someone else's kid who is".
> 
> Kicker and I have responded that this is not true at Beach, in the sense that most or any significant number of players in their A teams do not get a free ride based only on skill. I cannot say if this is true at other clubs, I have no knowledge about it.
> Do some teams at Beach get subsidized by other teams? Maybe, but not in the form of full rides. Before this year all girls practiced the same number of days, in the same fields (maybe an exception could have been the old academy teams, which may have practiced one more day and had the top coaches, but I do not know for sure). Furthermore, I have seen what people call top coaches (e.g. Mauricio and Anton Arrache), train flight II teams. I suspect that now the DA teams are getting partially subsidized, in the form of the fee paid by these players not fully covering  the extra number of hours of practice.
> I think that the argument about giving extra DA scholarships to girls from lower income families is mute. Those scholarships exist from US soccer; and I am also sure that any DA club will not miss on any deserving "poor" player, the clubs will pay for them.
> Regarding the argument about whether big clubs should subsidize their DA program using revenue from other teams, not only I agree with it but when we began talking about it last Winter I added that in exchange, the clubs should commit to keeping a large (but not all) % of DA slots reserved to players developed by the club (so that subsidizing families were happily on board, and to make sure that the clubs commit to development at the younger ages). I was laughed off by the usual suspects. One could argue how much subsidy should there be: a full or fractional ride for every DA player? In the case of Beach, it seems that the managers of the club have decided (I have not talked to them about this, I am just speculating) that every player in the club from a family wealthy enough to pay, will pay the same amount, the standard club fee. When I first read the DA application, I expected that a large club like Beach should commit to fully funding the DA program (for my own benefit and to ensure a successful bid). However, I think that a partial subsidy in which every player in the club pays the same amount stands on "higher moral ground".
> And I am aware that if I do not like this model, I can go elsewhere with a fully subsidized DA program.


Stand behind every one of my posts and yes this isn't an argument


----------



## SocalPapa

mbeach said:


> Regarding the argument about whether big clubs should subsidize their DA program using revenue from other teams, not only I agree with it but when we began talking about it last Winter I added that in exchange, the clubs should commit to keeping a large (but not all) % of DA slots reserved to players developed by the club (so that subsidizing families were happily on board, and to make sure that the clubs commit to development at the younger ages). I was laughed off by the usual suspects.


Thanks mbeach.  This is exactly what I was trying to get at.  There are any number of ways girls DA might be funded, but if you are going to ask parents of non-DA players to bear the cost it seems there should at least be a prospect of their daughters some day benefiting.  Reserving those DA slots for home grown players seems like a good option.  Otherwise, what's the point of having individual clubs sponsor the academy teams in the first place?

As for full pay families subsidizing need-based scholarships for other players, I have absolutely no problem with that.  That's a completely different situation (not unlike paying full tuition to a college that offers need-based aid).


----------



## Eagle33

SocalPapa said:


> As for full pay families subsidizing need-based scholarships for other players, I have absolutely no problem with that.  That's a completely different situation (not unlike paying full tuition to a college that offers need-based aid).


Need-based scholarships is already available for DA players.
http://www.ussoccerda.com/scholarship-program


----------



## Dos Equis

Eagle33 said:


> Need-based scholarships is already available for DA players.
> http://www.ussoccerda.com/scholarship-program


This program was originally designed around assumed fully funded DA programs.  Hence, in the third paragraph, the following language still exists ... "This program is designed to assist in travel-related expenses for full-time players registered to U-13 through U-18/19 teams within the Development Academy during the 2017-18 season."  

They later say it also is used for club fees, and we know money is somewhat fungible, so it may be.  However, they are assisting 280 kids out of over 7,000 participants (my conservative estimate based on their boy club numbers at each age group), or at most 4%.  That low number, and an average scholarship amount of $1,35o, leaves a pretty big gap for the non-fully funded clubs to fill if they want to make the program accessible to kids from lower income households.


----------



## jpeter

Eagle33 said:


> Need-based scholarships is already available for DA players.
> http://www.ussoccerda.com/scholarship-program


Yeah but with a avgerge around $1100 per player those are partial scholarships. Don't know of any player who has been fully sponsored just by ussda alone.

These go directly to the clubs not the players and they still need ways to cover the additional costs beyond those scholarships sums which don't come close to the real costs per player, YMMV.


----------



## MakeAPlay

Dos Equis said:


> Unless policy has changed, the US Soccer scholarships for DA are for player travel only, not for club fees, so there is a need for club support for families with financial needs. It was also very much a part of the commitment each club made to be selected to the DA.
> 
> Wherever one thinks the moral high ground may be, I am fine with a more "progressive" system where families who can afford it pay a little more, so others less able to can participate -- but everyone pays something.  I understand not everyone feels that way, but as you correctly point out, there are plenty of options to find the place that fits your goals.
> 
> In my experience, families who search for (and receive) the most money have the shortest longevity with a club.  People do not appreciate what they do not have to pay for.


I have to agree with you again.  The only time that I think that isn't the case is the U18 year.  Sometimes it is a struggle to field even one top team consistently with all of the things that pull the girls in different directions their senior year of high school.  Sometimes giving scholarships to a couple of players makes a difference.  In general though everyone should pay something.


----------



## Sheriff Joe

MakeAPlay said:


> I have to agree with you again.  The only time that I think that isn't the case is the U18 year.  Sometimes it is a struggle to field even one top team consistently with all of the things that pull the girls in different directions their senior year of high school.  Sometimes giving scholarships to a couple of players makes a difference.  In general though everyone should pay something.


Kind of a touchy subject, I believe how it is presented to the parents makes a big difference. If the other parents have to pay for another player they should have a say in that decision. Probably not real world, especially with most parents just going along to get along and trying not to make waves.


----------



## Kevin Redding

I'd always rather get something for free than pay for it, but I understand that the coaches need (and deserve!) to make a living.  To save money, we've told our club to avoid traveling to out of region showcases.  My kids will likely play in region so no need to travel elsewhere and spend $$$ to do it.


----------



## Bruddah IZ

SocalPapa said:


> The President of the LA Galaxy said on the radio Wednesday that they have spent "several million dollars" fully funding their girls development academy program (including improving a soccer field).
> 
> I wondered how that could be possible.  The Galaxy is a for profit enterprise.  How do they expect to get that money back?  It's different from MLS teams that have sponsored similar boys teams.  The Seattle Sounders, for example, benefited when Jordan Morris chose to come back and play for them as a "home grown" player.  But girls DA players obviously will not play in the MLS.  (Nor will they likely earn a livable wage playing professional women's soccer.  The team cap, for all players combined, is $315,000 a year!)
> 
> So how can the Galaxy afford to invest millions of dollars for teenagers to practice soccer.  Is it marketing - do they just hope to make it up in increased licensing fees from the affiliate LA Galaxy clubs (South Bay, Orange County, San Diego)?
> 
> And what about the other clubs?  Are they fully funding their DA teams too?  If so, then I guess they've now just set in stone a policy that full-pay families have to subsidize the top players (who may have no prior connection to the club).  Is everyone okay with that?


I assume the market will decide the longevity of Galaxy girls DA.  Galaxy, no doubt, has creditors and good intentions aren't considered currency at the moment. Unless you're a member of Congress.


----------



## Bruddah IZ

Dos Equis said:


> This program was originally designed around assumed fully funded DA programs.  Hence, in the third paragraph, the following language still exists ... "This program is designed to assist in travel-related expenses for full-time players registered to U-13 through U-18/19 teams within the Development Academy during the 2017-18 season."
> 
> They later say it also is used for club fees, and we know money is somewhat fungible, so it may be.  However, they are assisting 280 kids out of over 7,000 participants (my conservative estimate based on their boy club numbers at each age group), or at most 4%.  That low number, and an average scholarship amount of $1,35o, leaves a pretty big gap for the non-fully funded clubs to fill if they want to make the program accessible to kids from lower income households.


All you had to say is "fungible".


----------



## younothat

Bruddah IZ said:


> All you had to say is "fungible".


Yeah the avg scholarship is < $ 1,500 and it goes directly to the club not the individual for the 5% or so that get them 

To qualify for a scholarships you have to be earning & living in poverty  wo/  assets like a house, stocks, expensive cars, etc    

The fact < 5% get them tells you about the demographic of the DA....US soccer should do a lot more with the 100M$$ war chest they have....how about getting more lower income players involved by investing from the bottom up instead of the top down?


----------



## Bruddah IZ

younothat said:


> Yeah the avg scholarship is < $ 1,500 and it goes directly to the club not the individual for the 5% or so that get them
> 
> To qualify for a scholarships you have to be earning & living in poverty  wo/  assets like a house, stocks, expensive cars, etc
> 
> The fact < 5% get them tells you about the demographic of the DA....US soccer should do a lot more with the 100M$$ war chest they have....how about getting more lower income players involved by investing from the bottom up instead of the top down?


Surf has a nice system where parents and players can work off scholarships or contribute to player accounts for working at Surf Cup.


----------

