# Wall Street Journal article: "American Soccer Needs More Players" (ugh)



## oh canada (Feb 22, 2019)

From yesterday's WSJ.  Interesting note, the print headline was "American Soccer Needs More Players".  Guessing US Soccer didn't like that and now the digital article is entitled, "US Soccer President's American ambition."

Still, in the article the new Prez laments that we don't have enough youth players here.  That's just preposterous.  No idea where he's coming from on that other than he wants more players to grow revenue, but that's different than saying we don't have enough.

Another interesting tidbit from the article..."US Soccer's budget will be $136 million and that is 1/3 the budget of England's Football Association."  Wow, didn't know that.  That's a huge difference.  But as long as US Soccer continues to show it's incapable of committing to real change on both mens and womens side, and getting some good results, new money will not come...nor will it be deserved.  Enjoy:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-soccer-presidents-american-ambition-11550667600


----------



## watfly (Feb 22, 2019)

I can't read the whole article because I'm not subscribed to WSJ, but Cordeiro's claim is a joke.  We have a quality of programs problem not a quantity of players problem.

The last exhaustive study by FIFA a decade ago showed we had nearly 4,000,000 kids playing soccer, nearly double the 2nd highest country, Germany.  Now I know participation levels have decreased in soccer, like many other traditional youth sports, but we still have millions playing soccer.  And spare me the argument that all the best players play the big 3 sports.  Out of millions that play soccer their are plenty that are top athletes.

Maybe parents are tired of paying of paying big bucks for a sub-standard product and kids are tired of getting berated by their coaches and that is why participation is declining.


----------



## jrcaesar (Feb 22, 2019)

_Despite winning the [World Cup] bid, lagging participation is a major issue. Soccer players age 6-17 who played at least twice a month dropped more than 15% from 2013-2017, according to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association. SFIA gathers its information through surveys, and includes people who play outside of U.S. Soccer.

Youth soccer in the U.S. faces criticism for its lack of outreach to immigrants and other underserved communities, and its fractured structure involving several competing groups. Coreiro said U.S. Soccer has identified about 2 million of its youth players so far, about halfway to completing its most detailed ever inventory.

Soccer faces a battle for participants with other sports within the U.S. in the next few years. Despite recent declines, football has more high school players than soccer, and baseball had more total participants than soccer in 2018: 15.9 million compared with 11.4 million, according to SFIA. Cordeiro anticipates basketball will be soccer’s main competitor in the future.

Cordeiro said U.S. Soccer needs to capitalize on this year’s Women’s World Cup and the 2026 men’s World Cup in order to grow the game.

“If we can’t transform soccer to being the pre-eminent sport in the next 10 years, it may be another 25,” Cordeiro said. “It eventually will happen because demographics are in our favor.”_​


----------



## jpeter (Feb 22, 2019)

Plenty of youth playing soccer, many of the players don't play in structured or sanctioned leagues where the "club" fees price out a larger % of families especially in urban areas.

Us soccer should be spending some of there $$$165million war chest in assets to hire some coaches, scouts,  fields, help subside youth soccer so those outreach programs acutally make a difference and more kids are included not overlooked.

Ussda has all but given up on futsal programming which is easier & less expensive and fun for the young kids.  Too bad leadership is another problem, Chicago & east coast types living in the glass houses: _Cordeiro is more concerned with buliding reserves, marketing, and the national teams and hasn't done anything for the youth groups yet as far as I've seen._


----------



## MWN (Feb 22, 2019)

Many of you are not seeing the big picture.  US Soccer is just the Federation and the NGB (National Governing Body) of the sport pursuant to the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.  As the NGB it has 3 (technically 4) "Councils," with each of the Councils answerable to Affiliate Members, each of which has their own corporate structures and budgets/revenues.  The Councils are "Professional," "Adult," and "Youth" (and "Player's Council").  US Soccer's primary mission is to field the National Team and support the mission of the AFFILIATES through the Council.  The Affiliates do the heavy lifting and its NOT US Soccer role or responsibility to meddle in the affairs of the Affiliates.

Looking at the Budget surplus and thinking that US Soccer should "spend" that money on youth programs is ignorant.  That money was generated by the "Adult" programs, namely the national team.  If US Soccer were to redirect those funds from the National team to the youth council it would be sued and have both the Players, Professional and Adult Councils jumping down its throat.

The Youth Council receives some funds, but all the heavy lifting is done by the Youth Council Affiliate members.  Multiples of Hundreds of millions of dollars flow through the Youth Council members and their respective affiliates that never appears on the books of US Soccer.  Who are the Youth Council Members?  AYSO, US Club and U.S. Youth Soccer.  These organizations each have their own "members" ... US Youth Soccer has 55 member State Associations, Cal South is just 1 of those members.  Then each State Association has many more members (Coast, SCDSL, Surf SD, Surf XYZ, Albion, etc., with each of those leagues and clubs supporting thousands of teams, tens of thousands players, etc.).

None of the hundreds of millions (if not billions) flows to US Soccer.   You want to change the dynamic, you want to change the emphasis.  Talk to your DOC ... that is where the power lays.


----------



## oh canada (Feb 22, 2019)

Full article:

_The president of U.S. Soccer acknowledges the federation doesn’t actually know how many young soccer players it has playing under its umbrella. He does know that participation isn’t growing.

“All I can tell you is there’s no question over the last decade or so it stagnated,” Carlos Cordeiro said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, a year after winning a hotly contested election for federation president._

_The lack of hard data about its young players—and soccer’s languishing participation in the U.S.—is a crucial problem for Cordeiro at a time when U.S. Soccer is in a rebuilding mode.

The sport is battling to hang onto youth participants in the U.S. The dominant U.S. women’s national team is a favorite in this year’s World Cup but faces growing competition abroad. The men’s national team missed the 2018 World Cup and is regrouping around a new coach. It’s all happening as the U.S. prepares to co-host the 2026 World Cup along with Mexico and Canada, a big opportunity to boost the sport’s future in the U.S.

Unifying and expanding youth soccer were two of Cordeiro’s priorities when he became president. The mystery about how many players are in the U.S. Soccer pipeline—the result of data collected from several sources—prompted Cordeiro last year to gather five major youth soccer organizations onto a task force. U.S. Soccer is now assigning each young player a kind of national ID to ensure that they aren’t double-counted.

Cordeiro faces challenges that go far beyond stabilizing youth soccer. As he promoted the 2026 World Cup bid last year, he was reminded that the U.S. also lacks something that nearly every competitive soccer nation has: a comprehensive national training center. He confirmed the federation is considering building some kind of training center—or centers—possibly before 2026.

The plan is “a dream for now,” he said, but added: “In time I’d love for us to have it and I think the federation and sport deserves it.”

U.S. Soccer has its headquarters in Chicago, a referee and coach training center in Kansas City, Kan., and training grounds at the Dignity Health Sports Park in Carson, Calif. But California is a long flight from where some men’s national team players play professionally in Europe. More useful to the federation would be a center close to the East Coast.

Such a center would need a funding source. In that area, the U.S. badly lags serious soccer nations. The recently approved federation budget of $136 million is scarcely one-third the revenue of England’s Football Association.

That’s why Cordeiro has made revenue generation a focus. U.S. Soccer recently signed sponsorship deals with Deloitte and Volkswagen , the latter of which became the second-largest deal behind Nike .

“These are major companies who are choosing to promote their brands with us,” said Cordeiro, a former Goldman Sachs executive who doesn’t draw a salary from U.S. Soccer. “Why? Largely because they see the grass-roots support for the game.”


Cordeiro has remade some of the leadership of U.S. Soccer. The federation hired national team veteran Earnie Stewart as the team’s first general manager and Major League Soccer’s Gregg Berhalter as coach. The young team is 2-0 this year in friendlies against Panama and Costa Rica and will defend its Gold Cup title this summer.

The federation’s women’s side is a strength. A player on the famed 1999 World Cup team, Cindy (Parlow) Cone won the vice president position previously held by Cordeiro. She became one of the few women to hold such a position in global soccer.

More than two years after a rancorous fight over pay with the women’s national team, the biggest increase in U.S. Soccer’s budget will be for that team, Cordeiro said. Over all, the federation increased funding for the women’s and men’s national teams to roughly $60 million from $40 million, he said.

Ticket sales to the eight domestic women’s friendlies leading up to the June 7 Women’s World Cup in France are brisk, Cordeiro said. Yet despite its popularity and the U.S. women’s historic dominance—it’s won a record three World Cup titles—Cordeiro sees threats on the horizon. European soccer’s governing body, UEFA, is stepping up its support of women’s soccer, and professional men’s clubs in England and elsewhere are investing in women’s teams. Cordeiro noted the U.S. women’s U17 and U20 national teams’ falling short in their most recent World Cups.

So he’s assembling a group of inside and outside experts in women’s soccer to scrutinize the game and shore up American strength. “We can’t afford to rest on our laurels,” he said.

Cordeiro said the U.S.’s successful bid to host the 2026 men’s World Cup, which will increase to 48 teams from 32, has shifted the paradigm for the event.

“When we went and met with little countries, they looked at us and said, ‘My God, we can now dream someday to host a World Cup ourselves because we can get together as three, four or five,’” Cordeiro said. He predicted that in the future, “It will be very difficult for any single country to host a men’s World Cup.”

Despite winning the bid, lagging participation is a major issue. Soccer players age 6-17 who played at least twice a month dropped more than 15% from 2013-2017, according to the Sports & Fitness Industry Association. SFIA gathers its information through surveys, and includes people who play outside of U.S. Soccer.

Youth soccer in the U.S. faces criticism for its lack of outreach to immigrants and other underserved communities, and its fractured structure involving several competing groups. Cordeiro said U.S. Soccer has identified about two million of its youth players so far, about halfway to completing its most detailed ever inventory.

Soccer faces a battle for participants with other sports within the U.S. in the next few years. Despite recent declines, football has more high school players than soccer, and baseball had more total participants than soccer in 2018: 15.9 million compared with 11.4 million, according to SFIA. Cordeiro anticipates basketball will be soccer’s main competitor in the future.

Cordeiro said U.S. Soccer needs to capitalize on this year’s Women’s World Cup and the 2026 men’s World Cup in order to grow the game.

“If we can’t transform soccer to being the pre-eminent sport in the next 10 years, it may be another 25,” Cordeiro said. “It eventually will happen because demographics are in our favor.”_


----------



## Grace T. (Feb 22, 2019)

Here's a rebuttal....

https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/81294/how-to-keep-kids-playing-offer-something-differen.html

My 2 cents are it's really about time management.  College has become really very competitive, much more so than even 10 or 15 years ago.  If families eventually see soccer isn't going to be useful in getting them into colleges, they'll eventually shift to other things, because even the 2 practices and 1 game from a rec league are a huge time commitment (and by then, most of your friends are moving on because they are specializing in whatever is going to get them into college, so why play rec?) . One of the reasons lacrosse, field hockey, water polo and fencing have made a small revival in recent years is because these offer new avenues to specialize for kids that are outside of the crowded fields of basketball/baseball/soccer.


----------



## focomoso (Feb 22, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Here's a rebuttal....
> 
> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/81294/how-to-keep-kids-playing-offer-something-differen.html
> 
> My 2 cents are it's really about time management.  College has become really very competitive, much more so than even 10 or 15 years ago.  If families eventually see soccer isn't going to be useful in getting them into colleges, they'll eventually shift to other things, because even the 2 practices and 1 game from a rec league are a huge time commitment (and by then, most of your friends are moving on because they are specializing in whatever is going to get them into college, so why play rec?) . One of the reasons lacrosse, field hockey, water polo and fencing have made a small revival in recent years is because these offer new avenues to specialize for kids that are outside of the crowded fields of basketball/baseball/soccer.


My son plays pick-up futsal twice a week now and he likes it way more than any other setting. He's also improving more from that than any high (or low) level coaching / training he's receiving.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Feb 22, 2019)

Interesting article. I do like the WSJ. When we compare the US to the UK we see there is a 5 to 1 ratio of citizens. A 40 to 1 ratio in land mass. This in favor of the US. But according to the article the UK has a 3 to 1 ratio of total funding. With fewer players in their pool and a smaller geographic area to cover they are able to provide 6x the funding in the end. Overall when compared to the US they can be more effective in finding talent. These points create a huge challenge.


----------



## ChrisD (Feb 22, 2019)

focomoso said:


> My son plays pick-up futsal twice a week now and he likes it way more than any other setting. He's also improving more from that than any high (or low) level coaching / training he's receiving.


This on so many levels , my kid is enjoying the benefits of pick up games as well, Translate very well onto the field.


----------



## watfly (Feb 23, 2019)

MWN said:


> US Soccer's primary mission is to field the National Team and support the mission of the AFFILIATES through the Council.


Incorrect according to their bylaws.  US Soccer's primary purpose is "to promote, govern, coordinate, and administer the growth and development of soccer in all its recognized forms in the United States for all persons of all ages and abilities, including national teams and international games and tournaments"  The responsibility of the youth council is "to make reports and recommendations to the Board about youth soccer matters, including programs and activities the Board may direct the Youth Council to administer".  Their are no restrictions in the bylaws for the funding of youth soccer, in fact, expenses of the youth council can be included in the annual budget of the Federation.  There are also no legal restrictions on the source of funds being matched to the expenditures of funds.   Ironically, USSF generates more revenue from Youth registration fees than it invests back into the development of youth programs.

Yes, it's clear that USSF has made the USMNT it's priority mission; however, that's by choice and not by organizational structure.  USSF is failing youth soccer.


----------



## Lambchop (Feb 23, 2019)

watfly said:


> Incorrect according to their bylaws.  US Soccer's primary purpose is "to promote, govern, coordinate, and administer the growth and development of soccer in all its recognized forms in the United States for all persons of all ages and abilities, including national teams and international games and tournaments"  The responsibility of the youth council is "to make reports and recommendations to the Board about youth soccer matters, including programs and activities the Board may direct the Youth Council to administer".  Their are no restrictions in the bylaws for the funding of youth soccer, in fact, expenses of the youth council can be included in the annual budget of the Federation.  There are also no legal restrictions on the source of funds being matched to the expenditures of funds.   Ironically, USSF generates more revenue from Youth registration fees than it invests back into the development of youth programs.
> 
> Yes, it's clear that USSF has made the USMNT it's priority mission; however, that's by choice and not by organizational structure.  USSF is failing youth soccer.


Also, as a side note, so US Soccer wants to build a facility of the east coast because a handful or players play in Europe and it would be closer for them, seriously?


----------



## MWN (Feb 23, 2019)

watfly said:


> Incorrect according to their bylaws.  US Soccer's primary purpose is "to promote, govern, coordinate, and administer the growth and development of soccer in all its recognized forms in the United States for all persons of all ages and abilities, including national teams and international games and tournaments"  The responsibility of the youth council is "to make reports and recommendations to the Board about youth soccer matters, including programs and activities the Board may direct the Youth Council to administer".  Their are no restrictions in the bylaws for the funding of youth soccer, in fact, expenses of the youth council can be included in the annual budget of the Federation.  There are also no legal restrictions on the source of funds being matched to the expenditures of funds.   Ironically, USSF generates more revenue from Youth registration fees than it invests back into the development of youth programs.
> 
> Yes, it's clear that USSF has made the USMNT it's priority mission; however, that's by choice and not by organizational structure.  USSF is failing youth soccer.


I disagree with a few of your statements/opinions.  First, the generic statement in the Bylaws sets forth the over arching goals, true, but the National Council decisions have established more clearly defined roles than the generic statement you cite.

Let's take a step back.  Since we are talking how money is spent, appreciate that US Soccer spends its money according to an approved budget.  That budget is approved by the National Council (i.e. the voting members) each year by the National Council at the AGM.

Bylaw 301. STATUS AND GENERAL AUTHORITY
The National Council shall be the representative membership body of the Federation and have the following authority:
(1) to elect the President and Vice President of the Federation.
(2) to amend the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.
(3) *to approve the budgets of the Federation, including budgets of the Youth, Adult, Professional and Athletes' Advisory Councils.*
(4) to grant Life Member status to individuals.
(5) to approve changes in boundaries of State Associations.
(6) to approve membership fees paid to the Federation.
(7) to approve membership of all Organization Members.
(8) to adopt policies and rescind or amend policies adopted by the Board.
(9) to affirm actions of the Board.​At the 2019 AGM, the voting power was as follows:
Youth Council 313 votes (26%)
Adult Council 313 votes (26%)
Professional Council 313 votes (26%)
Athlete's Council 244 votes (20%)
Life, BOD and Past Presidents 36 votes (3%)

The proposed budget for 2020 reflects the following:

*Revenue from Youth*
Youth Membership Fees = $3.9 Million (USYS, US Club, SAY, AYSO, and SuperY)
US Development Academy = 1.4 Million
Roughly 5.3 Million from Youth.

*Expenses Related to Youth*
US Soccer will spend roughly 32 Million, which is broken down as follows:
3.2 Million Youth National Team Coaches and Olympic Admin (for Youth)
5.2 Million Boys/Men (U14-U23) National Team
6.2 Million Girls/Women (U14-U23) National Team
3.5 Million - Program Performance (Sports Medicine and High Performance)
14.2 Million - Development Programs (Club Dev., Tech. Dev., Scouting and Development Academy)

Just for the record, the USSDA contributes $1.4 Million in registration fees and US Soccer will pay out $8.7 Million to support it.

Note, US Soccer receive no revenue related to the Youth National Teams, only expenses.  There is no prize money (unlike the Men and Women World Cup) and tickets sales don't factor unless games are held in the US AND tickets are sold.

In other words, "Youth" contribute about 5.3 million and US Soccer will expend 32 million in 2020 on those same Youth.  Although about 3.7 is for the U20 and U23's.

This statement is patently false:


> Ironically, USSF generates more revenue from Youth registration fees than it invests back into the development of youth programs.


US Soccer spends about 5x more on Youth than its receives from Youth (which is entirely in the form of membership fees).  How that money is spent is voted on by all the "voting members" with the Professional and Athletes Council, which have aligned interests making up 46% of the vote. 

I simply do not agree with the criticism.

AGM Book with Budget: http://www.ussocceragm.com/book-of-reports


----------



## watfly (Feb 24, 2019)

MWN said:


> I
> *Revenue from Youth*
> Youth Membership Fees = $3.9 Million (USYS, US Club, SAY, AYSO, and SuperY)
> US Development Academy = 1.4 Million
> ...


Thanks for the link to the book of reports...a lot of interesting information.  As shown in its actual audited financial statements, the youth expenses you cite are designated as "National Team" expenses.   Granted youth soccer players benefit from these expenses but only a mathematically negligible percentage of the total registered youth soccer players actually benefit.  USSF's audited financials also show revenue from "Youth" but no associated expenses unlike "Coach", "Referee", "National Team" etc which have both revenue and expense line items.   The same goes for the budget in AGM which also shows no expenditures against Youth revenue.  I do admit to being pleasantly surprised by the expenditures by USSF for the DA program although its a small percentage of what parents and Clubs have to pay to support the program.  Certainly USSF spends money on youth programs but obviously not material enough to warrant it's own expenditure line item.  Youth benefit from the USSF coaching programs but these programs are still too expensive, too infrequent and too geographically dispersed for the majority of coaches to participate.

Despite its purpose to promote and develop soccer at all ages and abilities, there is very little evidence that USSF spends significant money on core youth or grass roots programs that benefit youth of all ages and abilities.  Drafting PDI's on a whiteboard in corporate headquarters and forcing them upon youth leagues is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.  Looks great but is meaningless in the end.  That just doesn't cut it for developing  youth soccer.

Despite your claim, there is nothing that legally or structurally prevents USSF from investing in youth programs that benefit the majority of youth.  If you want to argue that USSF spends sufficient funds on youth soccer program that's great, I obviously disagree.  But to say it can't, is not accurate.

One youth program that could have made a difference is the "Soccer Starts at Home" program developed by Tom Byer, an American, that was instrumental in the success of the Japanese soccer programs both at the youth and National Team levels.  USSF funded a 'Soccer Starts at Home" pilot program by Byer which was supported by Gulati, but cancelled the funding after only 6 months when Cordeiro's administration took power.  https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/05/24/tom-byer-us-soccer-pilot-program-canceled
Cordeiro's administration never gave a chance to a program with a proven track record of success.  Arrogance? Incompetence?  His administration also removed the futsal component of DA which I and others believe is a significant mistake. These are just a couple examples.   I'll give Cordeiro an A for fundraising (which granted is his primary responsibility) but I have to give him an F so far for the overall development of the sport.


----------



## Soccerfan2 (Feb 24, 2019)

Watfly, MWN made clear that youth expenses exceed revenue and priorities are voted on by all members. You’re arguing over the semantics of what “youth development” should mean. 

You complained about what you don’t like and what you would like to have, but do you have some suggestions about how to make coaching education better/cheaper or where to take the money from to afford more core and grassroots programs?


----------



## MWN (Feb 24, 2019)

I believe that @watfly's primary objection is with this statement, which I admit was imprecise: 



> Looking at the Budget surplus and thinking that US Soccer should "spend" that money on youth programs is ignorant. That money was generated by the "Adult" programs, namely the national team. If US Soccer were to redirect those funds from the National team to the youth council it would be sued and have both the Players, Professional and Adult Councils jumping down its throat.


I should have been more precise by stating if US Soccer's "BOD/Officers" were to redirect those funds ...  In any case, my point here is that the Youth Council is in charge of taking care of the youth, Adult Council promotes the adult game, Professional Council promotes the Professional Game, Athletes Council ... well ... looks out for the athletes.  The Youth Council members and their affiliates rake in hundreds of millions of dollars (multiples of what US Soccer brings in) and its their mission to focus on youth.  

Ultimately, I want US Soccer to focus on its core mission from an organizational standpoint, which is our National Team and support the efforts of the various council members, but don't usurp those missions.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Feb 25, 2019)

Grace T. said:


> Here's a rebuttal....
> 
> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/81294/how-to-keep-kids-playing-offer-something-differen.html
> 
> My 2 cents are it's really about time management.  College has become really very competitive, much more so than even 10 or 15 years ago.  If families eventually see soccer isn't going to be useful in getting them into colleges, they'll eventually shift to other things, because even the 2 practices and 1 game from a rec league are a huge time commitment (and by then, most of your friends are moving on because they are specializing in whatever is going to get them into college, so why play rec?) . One of the reasons lacrosse, field hockey, water polo and fencing have made a small revival in recent years is because these offer new avenues to specialize for kids that are outside of the crowded fields of basketball/baseball/soccer.


I usually ignore whatever Beau Dure writes - a big MLS/SUM tool/apologist. Pickup games during spring and summer would be okay - problem is all the clubs get scared when they play with kids from other clubs. Coaches/admins arent going to be volunteering to organize these free events - although admins should be if the goal is to get more kids involved. The problem is many clubs just looking to grab the better players from other clubs. Insurance issues also arise. Most places outside of the "normal" fields the clubs use will require insurance policies - clubs wont want to add these facilities to their insurance policies.


----------



## Grace T. (Feb 25, 2019)

Not_that_Serious said:


> I usually ignore whatever Beau Dure writes - a big MLS/SUM tool/apologist. Pickup games during spring and summer would be okay - problem is all the clubs get scared when they play with kids from other clubs. Coaches/admins arent going to be volunteering to organize these free events - although admins should be if the goal is to get more kids involved. The problem is many clubs just looking to grab the better players from other clubs. Insurance issues also arise. Most places outside of the "normal" fields the clubs use will require insurance policies - clubs wont want to add these facilities to their insurance policies.



Agreed a big problem is the insurance, legalities and clubs getting scared they'd lose their players (though it's also a great opportunity for clubs to recruit players from other teams....it's essentially what the Ole club has done in the SFV).  It's not a route to develop professional soccer players, though, which was what US Soccer is currently obsessed with given the world cup failure to quality.  It's a way to build a soccer culture and keep kids interested, particularly when their schedules get too full and they can't make the commitment to 4-5 days of soccer a week year round in club soccer, and they are too old to play AYSO rec.  

It's a way to answer the problem with American sports now days which is specialization....to get credit for an activity (whether admissions or scholarships) in college admissions you have to be able to list some accomplishment, but to be good at an activity it's argued you have to get the 1000 touches in per day (whether true or not, year round sports admins and parents seem to have bought into it), which means to keep up with others who are putting in the time you really have to throw yourself into it (and if your not a natural, that's even more so), which means some kids begin to fall behind and get discouraged with the sport (happened with my older in soccer, and now this year with my younger in bball which he no longer is playing during recess pickup games, preferring to hang with the soccer jocks), which once those kids leave those that remain have to decide to specialize and get better or leave once they get frustrated and the quality of play in the rec league drops....rinse repeat.


----------



## MWN (Feb 25, 2019)

Not_that_Serious said:


> I usually ignore whatever Beau Dure writes - a big MLS/SUM tool/apologist. Pickup games during spring and summer would be okay - problem is all the clubs get scared when they play with kids from other clubs. Coaches/admins arent going to be volunteering to organize these free events - although admins should be if the goal is to get more kids involved. The problem is many clubs just looking to grab the better players from other clubs. Insurance issues also arise. Most places outside of the "normal" fields the clubs use will require insurance policies - clubs wont want to add these facilities to their insurance policies.


To add a facility/district/county/city to an existing insurance policy costs nothing (seriously, nothing ... just tell the insurance agent we need to add XYZ as an "additionally insured.")  If clubs are registered under one of US Soccer's US Council members (US Youth Soccer or US Club or AYSO) AND the event is sanctioned by those members then insurance extends to all US Council affiliated members, meaning a US Club sanctioned tournament can bring in US Youth and AYSO teams and still feel good (player cards are required, however).

I don't know if any of you have seen this but there is a novel approach at the San Bernardino Soccer Complex: https://scrimmagefest.com/ which attacks the cost problem (a bit).


----------



## watfly (Feb 25, 2019)

Soccerfan2 said:


> Watfly, MWN made clear that youth expenses exceed revenue and priorities are voted on by all members. You’re arguing over the semantics of what “youth development” should mean.
> 
> You complained about what you don’t like and what you would like to have, but do you have some suggestions about how to make coaching education better/cheaper or where to take the money from to afford more core and grassroots programs?


Semantics, likely, but I'm basing my response on how USSF, and approved by its outside auditors, categorized the expenses.  Soccerfan2 what I would do is a very fair question.  First off let me issue this disclaimer.  I believe that the primary issue in US soccer is culture.  To change culture takes a long time and typically is organically driven, although I do believe there are a few things USSF can do to help the process along.

1) USSF needs to stop interfering with the operations of the US Soccer Foundation, which does provide grass roots programming primarily for underserved communities. The US Soccer Foundation is a powerful ally in the development of youth soccer.  The Federation should be supporting it, not fighting it.
2) Coaching programs need to include training on how children learn, how to communicate to children, positive coaching techniques and over coaching prevention.  Make training more available and affordable, instead of making public statements that its done on purpose because only a few people should have an advanced coaching license.  (The exact opposite approach that Iceland took)
3) Ditch most of the PDI's and promote futsal as a development tool
4) Change its focus from quantity to quality.  Ditch or reduce the USSF Grow Fund and use those funds to improve and reduce the cost of coaching programs or provide grass roots training programs.  It doesn't make sense to grow something that has fundamental issues.  Improve it first.
5) Fund proven core and grass roots programs like Tom Byer's "Soccer Begins at Home"
6) Restructure the DA since its been unsuccessful at producing world class players for the most part.  Right now the DA is just another league focused on winning which USSF euphemistically calls "meaningful games".  The only real benefit for DA is to consolidate talent for US Soccer to make scouting easier (easier for colleges as well which is a benefit to players).  US Soccer needs to take a more active role in the development  of players in the DA.  Suggestions are DA specific training for coaches, meaningful evaluations of DA coaches and programs at least annually (I believe programs may be reviewed superficially), a vision statement and implementation of the style of play USSF wants to promote,etc.  USSF is eliminating U12 DA and maybe U13 DA, use the cost savings from these age groups to implement some of these things.
7) Create a foundation for funding capital projects for US Soccer.  Its common for non-profits to have both an operating entity and a capital improvement entity with separate funding sources.  Traditionally, the Foundation's projects are funded through private fundraising.
      - Use the Foundation to raise funds to build training centers.  Make the training center available to all ages and abilities (fees would apply)
      - Use the Foundation to provide grants (with private partners) to fund soccer friendly facilities in communities, schools and other youth facilities like the installation of a     combo soccer goal and basketball hoop system.  What was just a basketball court is now a futsal court.  These are common in Europe (sorry for the quality of the picture)


How to pay for it?  Use some of the surplus and partner with corporate and private donors.  US Soccer's net assets have more than doubled since the last time they qualified for the World Cup in 2014 (in large part to proceeds from Copa America).  They certainly can free up some funds to implement programs for players of all ages and abilities, which I remind you is USSF's stated purpose, without taking funds away from the national teams.

I try to look for ways that things can be done, as opposed to how it can't be done.  This can be done.  As an anecdotal example I serve on the board of a youth services organization, our annual operating budget is not much over $2mm.  Through our separate foundation we were able to raise $10mm in private donations to build a facility in a community of only 60,000, with the majority of that funding coming from the citizens in that community.  If we can do it with our humble resources, US Soccer certainly can.  Unfortunately, the steps I would take would only bear fruit over the long term and USSF is under the gun for missing the World Cup so most of their efforts have to be measurable in the short term.


----------



## espola (Feb 25, 2019)

MWN said:


> To add a facility/district/county/city to an existing insurance policy costs nothing (seriously, nothing ... just tell the insurance agent we need to add XYZ as an "additionally insured.")  If clubs are registered under one of US Soccer's US Council members (US Youth Soccer or US Club or AYSO) AND the event is sanctioned by those members then insurance extends to all US Council affiliated members, meaning a US Club sanctioned tournament can bring in US Youth and AYSO teams and still feel good (player cards are required, however).
> 
> I don't know if any of you have seen this but there is a novel approach at the San Bernardino Soccer Complex: https://scrimmagefest.com/ which attacks the cost problem (a bit).


When my kids were younger, one of the teammate families had an unused horse arena behind their house (they were between horses), about the size of an indoor soccer field.  And it had lights!  They grew some grass and offered it as a team practice site.  It took less than a week to get it registered with Cal South as the _____ Family Soccer Field so that it was covered by the same insurance as the city parks.


----------



## espola (Feb 25, 2019)

watfly said:


> Semantics, likely, but I'm basing my response on how USSF, and approved by its outside auditors, categorized the expenses.  Soccerfan2 what I would do is a very fair question.  First off let me issue this disclaimer.  I believe that the primary issue in US soccer is culture.  To change culture takes a long time and typically is organically driven, although I do believe there are a few things USSF can do to help the process along.
> 
> 1) USSF needs to stop interfering with the operations of the US Soccer Foundation, which does provide grass roots programming primarily for underserved communities. The US Soccer Foundation is a powerful ally in the development of youth soccer.  The Federation should be supporting it, not fighting it.
> 2) Coaching programs need to include training on how children learn, how to communicate to children, positive coaching techniques and over coaching prevention.  Make training more available and affordable, instead of making public statements that its done on purpose because only a few people should have an advanced coaching license.  (The exact opposite approach that Iceland took)
> ...


LA84 Foundation still has money left for supporting youth sports.  It is leftover profits from the 1984 LA Olympics.

https://la84.org/


----------



## watfly (Feb 25, 2019)

espola said:


> LA84 Foundation still has money left for supporting youth sports.  It is leftover profits from the 1984 LA Olympics.
> 
> https://la84.org/


I'm a big fan of LA84.  I use it as an example when people say the Olympics are money losers.  They are losers if poorly run, or run by a country that can't afford it in the first place.  Salt Lake 2002 is another good example that has a very positive Olympic legacy.  I'm fortunate to have attended LA84 and SLC2002...awesome memories.


----------



## jpeter (Feb 26, 2019)

U.S. Soccer Invites South American Teams for Rich New Tournament in 2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/sports/us-soccer-copa-america-conmebol.html

"U.S. Soccer has invited South America’s 10 soccer federations to bring their national teams to the United States in 2020 for a new intercontinental championship that would run concurrently with that summer’s European Championship.

The offer, a package that includes almost $200 million in guarantees to the invited teams and their governing bodies, was made Tuesday in a letter from U.S. Soccer’s president, Carlos Cordeiro, to his counterparts at the 10 South American federations. For the past year, soccer officials across the Americas have held discussions about creating a quadrennial tournament involving national teams from both hemispheres, but with no agreement in sight, U.S. Soccer, eager to fill a gap in the global soccer calendar and bearing an enticing nine-figure offer, is now proposing to establish its own.

In the letter, Cordeiro said U.S. Soccer was offering to underwrite the new event and guarantee each nation — and both confederations — millions of dollars in appearance fees, subsidized travel and bonuses for each point earned. The champions could take home a prize of more than $11 million. Cordeiro has invited the South Americans to a meeting to discuss the proposal next week in Miami"

Underwriting tournments to entice other nations in showing up?  Seems like a strange gamble given the needs elsewhere but if it makes money?


----------



## espola (Feb 26, 2019)

jpeter said:


> U.S. Soccer Invites South American Teams for Rich New Tournament in 2020
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/sports/us-soccer-copa-america-conmebol.html
> 
> "U.S. Soccer has invited South America’s 10 soccer federations to bring their national teams to the United States in 2020 for a new intercontinental championship that would run concurrently with that summer’s European Championship.
> ...


Dump FIFA.


----------



## MWN (Feb 26, 2019)

jpeter said:


> U.S. Soccer Invites South American Teams for Rich New Tournament in 2020
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/sports/us-soccer-copa-america-conmebol.html
> 
> "U.S. Soccer has invited South America’s 10 soccer federations to bring their national teams to the United States in 2020 for a new intercontinental championship that would run concurrently with that summer’s European Championship.
> ...


First of all, US Soccer isn't stupid.  You can bet they have all their TV rights and sponsors lined up under letters of intent and know exactly what the anticipated "rights" revenues are going to be, before agreeing to underwrite anything.  They probably have about $300M in rights tentatively wrapped up, but whatever the number its north of $200M.

Second, its smart of US Soccer and its World Cup organizing committee to throw this mini World Cup event and they will likely use the same venues as they intend to use come 2026, so consider this a money-making dry run, which represents a good learning opportunity.


----------



## oh canada (Feb 26, 2019)

Agree, this is a great idea.  Glad to read Canada and other Concacaf nations included.  BTW, World Cup 2026 Finals should be held in Toronto, not LA!!!!  More central location, better global food, better beer, and legal cannabis


----------



## MWN (Feb 27, 2019)

oh canada said:


> Agree, this is a great idea.  Glad to read Canada and other Concacaf nations included.  BTW, World Cup 2026 Finals should be held in Toronto, not LA!!!!  More central location, better global food, better beer, and legal cannabis


There are something we can joke about and some things we cannot.  Toronto?  Central?  The Brazilians probably are objecting and voting for Miami.  Better global food?  Possibly, but unlikely when you look at Los Angeles due to the fact that more fresh ingrediants are available year round (heck, ask a Korean in Soul who has the best Korean food and they answer its in LA).  Legal cannabis?  Fine.

But you have crossed a line, CROSSED IT I SAY!!!! Best beer?  This is precisely why we need a freaking wall on our northern border too and probably some sort of "firewall" (or icewall) for the internet.  Way too many canucks with their misinformed commie rhetoric ... better beer my butt (unless we are talking about that piss-water colored swill sold by Bud, Miller and Coors ... then I agree)

Since the collective wisdom on this Forum likes comparing the stats of 7 year old girls teams and arguing over what Pre-DA, Pre-ECNL, PREpubescent 7v7 team could beat some other prepubescent 7v7 team from North Carolina, I bring you the Beer Advocate's beer stats:

'Merica has no beer in the top 100 with a score lower than 4.5.  None lower.  https://www.beeradvocate.com/lists/us/ 

As we move up to visit our so-called-friends in Canada the beer situation get's worse, much worse.  https://www.beeradvocate.com/lists/ca/ Please make note of the fact that the Highest Ranking Canadian beer has a score of 4.45 (style is American Imperial Stout, which was really put on the map by Founders Brewing Company in Grand Rapids, Michigan), the first 10 beers all are styles defined here in the States, Belgium and Russia. Does Canada even have their own style of beer?

@oh canada, aside from being world leaders in Zamboni technology, I think we can add one more reason to the list:


----------



## outside! (Feb 27, 2019)

oh canada said:


> Agree, this is a great idea.  Glad to read Canada and other Concacaf nations included.  BTW, World Cup 2026 Finals should be held in Toronto, not LA!!!!  More central location, better global food, better beer, and legal cannabis


Canada hosted the Women's World Cup on turf. They never deserve another chance.


----------



## jpeter (Feb 28, 2019)

Well Conmebol Rejects U.S. Soccer’s Offer for New Tournament
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/sports/conmebol-us-soccer-copa-america.html

"South America’s top soccer official on Thursday rejected an invitation to take part in a proposed intercontinental tournament hosted and financed by U.S. Soccer in the summer of 2020, saying the continent’s governing body preferred to maintain the primacy of its own continental championship, the Copa América.

U.S. Soccer President Carlos Cordeiro had made the offer for a combined tournament featuring South America’s 10 teams and six from the region comprising North and Central America and the Caribbean in a letter earlier this week. U.S. Soccer’s offer would have been worth tens of millions of dollars for the South American teams, their regional rivals who took part, and the two confederations governing soccer in the Americas.

But in a letter to Cordeiro dated Wednesday, first reported by the Brazilian news outlet Globo, the president of the South American federation, Alejandro Dominguez, categorically rejected the invitation to a proposed Continental Cup in 2020. Dominguez’s letter cited a lack of FIFA approval for the new event, but also a preference to prioritize the Copa América, which is the oldest international soccer championship in the world.

why is the USSF in the soccer tournament promotion business anyway? Don't see that in the charter or anything like that and they have more pressing things to spend resouces on like hiring some coaches for the YNT or something that acutally helps soccer in the usa?  Giving away millions in incentives to play in promotional tournments seems like a profit for business.


----------



## oh canada (Mar 1, 2019)

MWN said:


> There are something we can joke about and some things we cannot.  Toronto?  Central?  The Brazilians probably are objecting and voting for Miami.  Better global food?  Possibly, but unlikely when you look at Los Angeles due to the fact that more fresh ingrediants are available year round (heck, ask a Korean in Soul who has the best Korean food and they answer its in LA).  Legal cannabis?  Fine.
> 
> But you have crossed a line, CROSSED IT I SAY!!!! Best beer?  This is precisely why we need a freaking wall on our northern border too and probably some sort of "firewall" (or icewall) for the internet.  Way too many canucks with their misinformed commie rhetoric ... better beer my butt (unless we are talking about that piss-water colored swill sold by Bud, Miller and Coors ... then I agree)
> 
> ...


LOVE this post MWN!  And agree, it's a topic that actually matters vs. who is going to win State/National Cup...yawn.

Us Canadiens or Canadians as Americans spell, are common folk with no regard for foofy clothes, metrosexual beauty products, plastic surgery, nor high-maintenance beer.  So, when claiming to have the best, I'm talking about the brands available to the masses, in the bars and at the local liquor stores.  The brands that matter.  Those that we drink after shooting moose, fishing the lake or skating home from work (it's really a thing in cities like Ottawa).  Not those unknown beers that some guy wearing only his underwear and a handlebar moustache concocted in his Portland basement, entered a contest and won.  So yes, I'm talking about Molson vs. Budweiser et al.  No contest.  I'm thirsty.


----------



## Sheriff Joe (Mar 1, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Well Conmebol Rejects U.S. Soccer’s Offer for New Tournament
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/sports/conmebol-us-soccer-copa-america.html
> 
> "South America’s top soccer official on Thursday rejected an invitation to take part in a proposed intercontinental tournament hosted and financed by U.S. Soccer in the summer of 2020, saying the continent’s governing body preferred to maintain the primacy of its own continental championship, the Copa América.
> ...


Build the Wall.


----------



## watfly (Mar 1, 2019)

jpeter said:


> Well Conmebol Rejects U.S. Soccer’s Offer for New Tournament
> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/sports/conmebol-us-soccer-copa-america.html
> 
> "South America’s top soccer official on Thursday rejected an invitation to take part in a proposed intercontinental tournament hosted and financed by U.S. Soccer in the summer of 2020, saying the continent’s governing body preferred to maintain the primacy of its own continental championship, the Copa América.
> ...


USSF obviously did it because it made $50 million off the Copa Centenario  (a one off event), which is the primary source of USSF's current surplus.  It was presumptuous of the USSF to think Conmebol would be interested in a tournament that effectively copies Copa America (even with the offer of healthy financial incentives).  The fact that USSF didn't even have FIFA approval smacks of a desperate attempt to make US Soccer relevant after missing the World Cup. I'm not opposed to USSF hosting a profitable international tournament but this one was not well conceived.


----------



## MWN (Mar 1, 2019)

watfly said:


> USSF obviously did it because it made $50 million off the Copa Centenario  (a one off event), which is the primary source of USSF's current surplus.  It was presumptuous of the USSF to think Conmebol would be interested in a tournament that effectively copies Copa America (even with the offer of healthy financial incentives).  The fact that USSF didn't even have FIFA approval smacks of a desperate attempt to make US Soccer relevant after missing the World Cup. I'm not opposed to USSF hosting a profitable international tournament but this one was not well conceived.


From what I have heard, US Soccer floated the idea to a few of the other South American federations (CBF, etc.) who were in favor (money was good).  The response was, yes, we would be interested, however, why don't you offer it to Conmebol first. US Soccer did, and got a response that may have been expected.  No problem, US Soccer will just switch gears and invite various federations, skipping Conmebol altogether.  We will still likely see the Brazilians and other higher level countries interested and as long as no conflict with their regional tournament, participation should be good.


----------

