# Solidarity and Training Payments and the Pay To Play Scapegoat



## MWN (Dec 12, 2017)

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

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

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

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

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

*Training Compensation: *

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

*Solidarity Contribution - Payment breakdown*

When a professional moves during the course of a contract, 5% of any compensation, with the exception of Training Compensation, paid to his Former Club shall be deducted from the total amount of this compensation and distributed by the New Club as a solidarity contribution to the club(s) involved in his training and education over the years (calculated pro rata if less than one year) he was registered with the relevant club(s) between the Seasons of his 12th and 23rd birthdays, as follows:

Season of 12th birthday:  5%
Season of 13th birthday:  5%
Season of 14th birthday:  5%
Season of 15th birthday:  5%
Season of 16th birthday:  10%
Season of 17th birthday:  10%
Season of 18h birthday:  10%
Season of 19th birthday:  10%
Season of 20th birthday:  10%
Season of 21st birthday:  10%
Season of 22nd birthday:  10%
Season of 23rd birthday:  10%
Solidarity payments represent the real incentive for youth and lower level professional clubs.    In the UEFA Champions League over $235 million as paid out to lower level and youth clubs as solidarity payments.  In the US ... $0. 

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

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

NOTE: The above only applies to boys, the girls have entirely different economics (namely, no economically viable professional path at this time and for the foreseeable future).


----------



## Striker17 (Dec 12, 2017)

You lost me at "Goal Nation" what a biased rag yuck


----------



## MWN (Dec 12, 2017)

Striker17 said:


> You lost me at "Goal Nation" what a biased rag yuck


No need to read the article, my comments simply mirror what coach Lloyd Biggs attempts to say, just not so eloquently and detailed as my post above.


----------



## Grace T. (Dec 12, 2017)

The other thing that the MLS has done, of course, is the salary caps.  They not only keep US teams from being unable to afford top level European talent for the higher DP slots, but they also make the salary for non-DP slots very unattractive to players considering the alternative of college (though it might be attractive to players from Mexico or Trinidad & Tobago who then take that MLS salary and retire to their lower cost homelands).  Lot's of people have just been suggesting that our top talent should just go to Europe, but U.S. tax and immigration law makes that very difficult.

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


----------



## MWN (Dec 12, 2017)

Grace T. said:


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


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

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


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 12, 2017)

In order to solve pay 2 play solidarity payments have to go to youth clubs. i was a big believer they shouldnt go to youth clubs, since it POSSIBLY creates a bigger greedy monster. imagine if the big clubs in are area can make more money? this was the belief until i found out where the solidarity payments go - to MLS. the players have been sold, oddly they believe it, that this is in their best interest. I was also against the clubs "double dipping" but in reality this is what allows for scholarships and low cost play in other countries. US Soccer with FIFA can mandate a lot - if clubs done abide, they dont get the money. It would be a way to force better ethics if done correctly.  There has to be a TON of safeguards and infrastructure in place in order to make sure it doesnt become another money grab. ultimately these payments can help fund soccer even at the lowest levels and improve coaching pool as well. Most of the articles talk about the top levels only, but money coming into the system will probably help lowest levels as well. Wynalda talked with Grant Wahl last week on his podcast and talked about adding an extra $1 on all soccer ticket sales and stick that back into the system - dont think most would complain or  financially feel that $1


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 12, 2017)

MWN said:


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


Grant Wahl also talked to Cathy Carter. The more i hear her the more I hope she doesnt win. No specific answers. Polished politician type. ALl aware of what needs to be done, but soccer is the focus with those coming from SUM, US Soccer & MLS. People involved with this companies/orgs dance around the way they are all tied. Like Wynalda said, the owners would have to agree to unravel it and accept PRO/REL and what comes with it. Wynalda is taking the approach you have to talk $$$$ to owners and has. Truth is MLS owners lose money as it is. In all this, the soccer product is lost, our identity of play in the US was lost this last soccer cycle. Need to find it. Can look to Italy for an example. Wynalda seems like the only guy who gets it of the ones running. Others have good ideas, like Winograd (but wont push pro/rel) and Gans who wants to blow up the youth system. The rest are status quo, over their heads, used car salesman or about status quo. Also have to take note of many parents/coaches/clubs who dont want any change unless its them having more control or money making ability - without any strings or any added regulation.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 12, 2017)

Article about Double Pass. Wynalda kind of brings them up in the Wahl interview. Double Pass has advised of all the issues going on and issue with pay to play. They also speak of the kids falling through the cracks and not being developed - something guys like Alexi lalas, bruce arenas and every mls soccer GM try to say doesnt happen. Just need to fix issues ourselves and stop looking at companies/people from overseas to come solve them for us.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/4x9jvd/inside-double-pass-the-best-kept-secret-in-youth-development-is-coming-to-america


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 12, 2017)

Another one. Talks about the issues, like academies not getting any $ back for dev. Again, think we know our problems, doesnt take a company from Belgium to tell us. Just have to be willing to do something about it. 

https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/02/08/us-soccer-double-pass-youth-academy-development


----------



## Ballon d'Or (Dec 12, 2017)

Here's another article from almost two years ago that advocates training and solidarity compensation to clubs:
https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/01/25/training-compensation-solidarity-us-soccer-mls

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

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


----------



## MWN (Dec 12, 2017)

@Not_that_Serious, good to see you changed your mind on solidarity payments and training fees.  

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


----------



## Sons of Pitches (Dec 12, 2017)

MWN said:


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


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

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

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

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


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 12, 2017)

Ballon d'Or said:


> Here's another article from almost two years ago that advocates training and solidarity compensation to clubs:
> https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/01/25/training-compensation-solidarity-us-soccer-mls
> 
> The biggest advocate of training and solidarity compensation running for USSF President is Michael Winograd.
> ...


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


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 12, 2017)

MWN said:


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


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

Id also add solidarity payments would be paid to college teams as well. I dont see how that wouldnt help with scholarships and investment into training methods and facilities


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 12, 2017)

Sons of Pitches said:


> Pretty easy to understand - SUM collects 90 million a year from ESPN/Univision and 85 million a year from Adidas for a total of 175 million, or approximately $8 million/year per MLS team, that they get to keep off the MLS books, and claim they are not making money, and keep the players from sharing in. These are the two major deals, but i bet all the smaller deals, licensing, etc... add up to an equal amount.  Probably a nice tidy 15 to 20 million a year that the MLS owners keep off the club books, so they can depress the salaries of players and claim they are a nascent league, relatively unprofitable league.
> 
> Why else would you have several entities vying to pay 150 million to get a franchise.  oh and by the way, SUM get the 150 Milllion too.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## soloyosh (Dec 12, 2017)

MWN said:


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


Odds on whether we see the DP report when it is done?  I am betting if Cordeiro or Carter are in charge when the report is delivered, it will be heavily filtered.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 12, 2017)

soloyosh said:


> Odds on whether we see the DP report when it is done?  I am betting if Cordeiro or Carter are in charge when the report is delivered, it will be heavily filtered.


a la FIFA with Garcia report? release some heavily filtered report


----------



## Sons of Pitches (Dec 12, 2017)

No WPSL team in SoCal?  Why not LA Galaxy?  Surf? Blues?[/QUOTE]
sorry that should have been "NWSL ", not up on my women's professional soccer associations.


----------



## Kante (Dec 16, 2018)

Good article with detail on the current situation w/ Crossfire, FIFA's DRC and solidarity payments. https://theathletic.com/712331/2018/12/13/tottenham-deandre-yedlin-crossfire-solidarity-payments-arguments-details/


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 16, 2018)

Decent article, missing some thing and was a bit leaning to towards Spurs solely being in the wrong. Spurs created an issue by seemingly acknowledging they worded Crossfire money. MLS probably had some conversations with them and all the money went to Seattle. It’s seems from reading articles MLS/Sounders really owes them the money. Crossfire should have tried to handle this in US Courts to attempt to get a ruling on at least some underlying issues - like MLS not keeping accurate records of players they get from other youth clubs. That is required by FIFA. MLS now is talking about training comp - caveat is they are talking about como for THEIR clubs. They don’t care about any other teams and would prefer they don’t get compensated. That is short sided since growing comp at even DA level will increase investment into non-mls clubs. MLS would reap awards with better players, more labor and more possible kids to pluck up - then they can sell them at a profit as well. These people in MLS offices and US Soccer are really bright at making money, but they care about making the money today...screw tomorrow and years from now


Kante said:


> Good article with detail on the current situation w/ Crossfire, FIFA's DRC and solidarity payments. https://theathletic.com/712331/2018/12/13/tottenham-deandre-yedlin-crossfire-solidarity-payments-arguments-details/


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 16, 2018)

Typos + autocorrect for the win. Spurs basically acknowledged they owed crossfire money in a letter sent to them. They now backtracked a bit


----------



## MWN (Dec 16, 2018)

Not_that_Serious said:


> Decent article, missing some thing and was a bit leaning to towards Spurs solely being in the wrong. Spurs created an issue by seemingly acknowledging they worded Crossfire money. MLS probably had some conversations with them and all the money went to Seattle. It’s seems from reading articles MLS/Sounders really owes them the money. Crossfire should have tried to handle this in US Courts to attempt to get a ruling on at least some underlying issues - like MLS not keeping accurate records of players they get from other youth clubs. That is required by FIFA. MLS now is talking about training comp - caveat is they are talking about como for THEIR clubs. They don’t care about any other teams and would prefer they don’t get compensated. That is short sided since growing comp at even DA level will increase investment into non-mls clubs. MLS would reap awards with better players, more labor and more possible kids to pluck up - then they can sell them at a profit as well. These people in MLS offices and US Soccer are really bright at making money, but they care about making the money today...screw tomorrow and years from now


Your anger at the MLS and USSF is misplaced.  These are not the villains in this story, although the Federation isn't a hero either.  The villains are the players ... in particular the MLS Players union.  The players have sued, threatened to sue, objected and kicked and screamed on this issue.

The MLS Players have taken the position/believe that allowing solidarity and training fees to be paid will reduce their ultimate wages.  They believe that its a zero sum game.  A finite amount of money is available to the players and they want it all ... every penny ... f' the clubs, f' the kids behind them, f' them all and hope nobody calls their hypocritical BS on them.  

What they don't get is that they (the players) are not a commodity, but a potentially valuable assets that clubs "could" invest in if there was an ROI.  This investment could mean the skill set increases, many more opportunities are presented, such that Latin America and European clubs where "soccer" is the number 1 sport and starters get paid millions are willing to buy and sell their asses for millions.  The better trained, the more valuable.

Right now, there just isn't a sufficient ROI in the American game because the players have actively stripped the Clubs/Academies of solidarity and training compensation.

This Christmas all the players and their agents and union get "coal."


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 16, 2018)

MWN said:


> Your anger at the MLS and USSF is misplaced.  These are not the villains in this story, although the Federation isn't a hero either.  The villains are the players ... in particular the MLS Players union.  The players have sued, threatened to sue, objected and kicked and screamed on this issue.
> 
> The MLS Players have taken the position/believe that allowing solidarity and training fees to be paid will reduce their ultimate wages.  They believe that its a zero sum game.  A finite amount of money is available to the players and they want it all ... every penny ... f' the clubs, f' the kids behind them, f' them all and hope nobody calls their hypocritical BS on them.
> 
> ...


I disagree, they are all to blame. MLS/Us Soccer has a created this environment. In podcasts and article you can find they talk about this and MLS basically has convinced them, somewhat forcefully, that no soladarity is in there best interest - basically if they don’t agree, they won’t get any increases in pay from transfers. The union has almost zero leverage in negotiations. Recently Max and Herc (with Seb Salazar) go over Liga MX and much of how they operate parallels MLS - in fact it seems as though they work together to create an environment where labor is abused. In MLS Most is above board but in a Liga MX they have the “gentleman’s agreement”. Herc dives into it, as he has played in both leagues and gives specific examples. This also involves the national teams and compensation. They said they would do an mls version of what they did on MC, but impossible to talk Liga MX and national teams were without being up Garber and SUM


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Dec 16, 2018)

I’d add if the players had a choice you wouldn’t see many mid 20yr old  domestic players retiring - being squeezed out by foreign players they pay less. Some would argue those guys are better and their fault they get squeezed out, but most big leagues around the world have rules about domestic players for a reason. The domestic product and dev system needs to improve - but MLS really doesn’t see a need for it to when they can import cheap labor


----------



## toucan (Jan 8, 2019)

Question about solidarity payments.  Don't these payments ultimately come from the player's salary?  And if so, doesn't that mean that the player pays twice; once when he paid his club fees, and again when he goes pro?


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Jan 8, 2019)

toucan said:


> Question about solidarity payments.  Don't these payments ultimately come from the player's salary?  And if so, doesn't that mean that the player pays twice; once when he paid his club fees, and again when he goes pro?


my understanding is the buying club pays it. players arent loosing anything. mls is getting the money and trying to keep it. if you see the court docs,Spurs originally agreed they owed Crossfire the money (letter in response to letter sent to them by Crossfire attorney in London)...then backtracked. im sure mls called contacted them to do so. European clubs will pay and mention obligation to pay according to FIFA...problem is MLS and players not seeing big picture.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Jan 8, 2019)

Not_that_Serious said:


> my understanding is the buying club pays it. players arent loosing anything. mls is getting the money and trying to keep it. if you see the court docs,Spurs originally agreed they owed Crossfire the money (letter in response to letter sent to them by Crossfire attorney in London)...then backtracked. im sure mls called contacted them to do so. European clubs will pay and mention obligation to pay according to FIFA...problem is MLS being greedy and players not seeing big picture.


----------



## toucan (Jan 8, 2019)

Not_that_Serious said:


> my understanding is the buying club pays it. players arent loosing anything. mls is getting the money and trying to keep it. if you see the court docs,Spurs originally agreed they owed Crossfire the money (letter in response to letter sent to them by Crossfire attorney in London)...then backtracked. im sure mls called contacted them to do so. European clubs will pay and mention obligation to pay according to FIFA...problem is MLS and players not seeing big picture.


I know that the clubs write the check.  But in the end, doesn't the club figure the cost in when it negotiates the player's salary, and isn't that cost ultimately passed through to the player?  I have to believe that the club has a top figure that it is willing to pay to the player, but part of that number gets siphoned off for the solidarity payment.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Jan 8, 2019)

toucan said:


> I know that the clubs write the check.  But in the end, doesn't the club figure the cost in when it negotiates the player's salary, and isn't that cost ultimately passed through to the player?  I have to believe that the club has a top figure that it is willing to pay to the player, but part of that number gets siphoned off for the solidarity payment.


The problem is the MLS single entity structure. Clubs have to inflate prices on players to cover what goes to MLS. This is really the bigger problem when trying to move players. A few articles breakdown what players get due to solidarity payments, virtually nothing. Players shoot themselves in the foot to get a couple more pennies. Its actually a sad state players have to fight for all the pennies they can. Most people wont give up a dollar in the hand now to ATTEMPT to get five back in the future. SOme players dont think theyll be around to benefit. They arent willing to give up anything for future players at this point. Players in other sports have gone through the fight, hopefully MLS players will do so in the near future. Wasn't long ago USMNT players got almost nothing to play games - some players were actually paid ZERO. Took players like Eric Wynalda to tell them pay everyone the same or theyll go home - US Soccer caved.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Jan 8, 2019)

Side note, El Tri players going through same thing. Problem is Liga MX/MX Fed is basically a cartel. Liga MX parallels US Soccer/MLS in everything and are tied via SUM. MLS just tends to do everything legally, except some shady dealings via SUM. Players in MX have been shut out of the national team like they use to do with American Players - like Vermes. Good podcast from Max & Herc that talk about this - they suppose to do one on MLS/US Soccer. Players are very handcuffed on this continent.


----------



## Kante (Jan 8, 2019)

Not_that_Serious said:


> The problem is the MLS single entity structure. Clubs have to inflate prices on players to cover what goes to MLS. This is really the bigger problem when trying to move players.


I understand that MLS intercepted and then held the solidarity payment from Tottenham re: Yedlin. However, don't understand how the single entity structure plays into and/or drives this?

And you're saying that Mexican youth clubs also don't receive solidarity payments?

Not arguing the points at all, just curious and asking for more info/clarification.


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Jan 8, 2019)

Kante said:


> I understand that MLS intercepted and then held the solidarity payment from Tottenham re: Yedlin. However, don't understand how the single entity structure plays into and/or drives this. (not arguing the point, just curious and asking for more info/clarification)


another topic on here discussing the same thing. this article talks a bit about the structure:
https://medium.com/@isaac_krasny/unpacking-the-major-league-soccer-business-model-827f4b784bcd

Clubs have to kick money to MLS, they have to cover that cost somehow. They do so in part with help of MLS by controlling labor costs. They also have to jack up asking prices on transfers. Many deals dont get done because they price the player out.  If players/parents had more choices, MLS would lose cheap labor. Clubs being compensated can offer options and MLS wont control the top tier of kids -the labor. You can see the market has changed due to parents understanding MLS isnt always the best option. In the past MLS would sign players almost ready to contribute at Senior Level. Now they are forced to risk and sign kids at 14-15 years of age because the older elite teens are going over seas. Most kids dont make it. So MLS/CLubs now have to invest more money then they did before. They dont like that. MLS relied on other clubs developing kids (also parents money) and then coming in and signing them. The single entity structure is the root of the decision making - that and greed.


----------



## younothat (Jan 21, 2019)

*Ben Fast*‏ @bwfast
USA soccer has a "pay-to-play/rich sport" problem. Why? There's no point in building/investing in free-to-play academies and scouting networks. America should have thousands of them. #ProRelforUSA

USA soccer has a massive “pay-to-play” or “rich sport” problem. Thousands upon thousands of eager and talented young soccer players are priced out of, cannot find, or are never scouted for high-quality playing and training opportunities.

But get this:

Pay-to-play itself does not need to be touched. It is NOT a bogeyman that needs to be destroyed.

“Wait, What?!”

There is an important distinction to remember in the effort to solve this problem:

It’s not about destroying the “pay-to-play” system itself, it’s about INCENTIVIZING the creation of a separate, free-to-play pipeline that is normally seen in other soccer nations around the world.

“Paying for soccer” has to exist at some level of any nation’s soccer ecosystem. Resources, infrastructure, and services cost money. Markets do not function on charity alone. The key difference is WHO is paying for the soccer opportunities.

In normal soccer nations around the world (98% of the free world), TWO youth player opportunity pipelines exist:

1) A free-to-play training and scouting pipeline established by professional soccer clubs striving for competition achievements and financial profit.

2) A pay-to-play pipeline where participants exchange money for organized soccer activity.

What on the surface looks like a “pay-to-play” or “rich sport” root problem is really just a symptom of one single bad governing policy: a closed USA soccer market.

In an open USA soccer market (read: promotion/relegation and an open division 1), America’s thousands of soccer clubs would have incentive to build and invest in free-to-play academies and scouting networks. This chance of a return on investment could come from the financial reward of winning promotion to a higher division (increases in merchandise sales, TV deal shares, attendance etc.), or the sale of “homegrown”, senior-level players to other clubs for financial profit (spend fifty-thousand dollars on a player “X’s” development from age 11-17, then sell him on at age 18 to another club for a fee of ten million dollars).

Imagine if 500 open system USA soccer clubs fielded academies with a rough average of 60 player slots each. This would result in 30,000 free-to-play, high-level player development opportunities (not to mention many job opportunities for coaches, scouts, and administrators). USA has an estimated 9,000 soccer clubs through the youth and pro levels under the current closed system, so the above projection is ultra conservative. There is potential for hundreds of thousands of club player and staff opportunities.

The pay-to-play soccer pipeline would simply fill the remaining vacuum in the ecosystem. There will still be a massive swath of players seeking a soccer recreational experience or a fallback competitive outlet just below the pro academy cut line. Americans have a huge appetite for youth sports entertainment and plenty of disposable income. Pay-to-play soccer is not going anywhere. It is very healthy for American soccer in this scenario.

American soccer has been forced to rely solely on its pay-to-play pipeline for the development of professional and national team players.

The lack of a free-to-play academy and scouting pipeline means that a multitude of players are never discovered or properly developed. Players in good economic or geographic situations have a leg up on the rest. Open systems serve just consequences for both success and failure. Closed systems simply cannot filter talent as efficiently as open systems. Basing promotion and relegation on the arbitrary decisions of coaches and scouts carries far greater potential for human error than the normal procedure of letting matches on the field serve as main driver of promotion and relegation.

The fact that USA – despite a crippling closed market policy – is able to salvage some success at the senior level is a testimony to its raw soccer potential. In a 2006 global soccer census, FIFA estimated that USA soccer had over 24 MILLION soccer players. That’s one soccer player for every 14 people you meet in its population of 325+ million. Even if that player estimate is off by multiple millions, it is still a number that matches the general population totals of many great soccer nations. Leave pay-to-play alone and give soccer clubs the opportunity to build the free-to-play opportunities that American soccer desperately needs.
https://ben-fast.com/2018/05/27/what-causes-usa-soccers-pay-to-play-problem/


----------



## MWN (Jan 21, 2019)

younothat said:


> *Ben Fast*‏ @bwfast
> USA soccer has a "pay-to-play/rich sport" problem. Why? There's no point in building/investing in free-to-play academies and scouting networks. America should have thousands of them. #ProRelforUSA
> 
> USA soccer has a massive “pay-to-play” or “rich sport” problem. Thousands upon thousands of eager and talented young soccer players are priced out of, cannot find, or are never scouted for high-quality playing and training opportunities.
> ...https://ben-fast.com/2018/05/27/what-causes-usa-soccers-pay-to-play-problem/


Wow, this Ben fellow has no idea what he is writing about.  He appears to be so biased in favor of Pro/Rel that he tries to attach the concept of Pro/Rel to pay-to-play and not once mentions the Elephant in the room.  I feel a little dumber after reading that.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jan 21, 2019)

MWN said:


> Wow, this Ben fellow has no idea what he is writing about.  He appears to be so biased in favor of Pro/Rel that he tries to attach the concept of Pro/Rel to pay-to-play and not once mentions the Elephant in the room.  I feel a little dumber after reading that.


He’s no different than many random posters on here. In fact it’s good he does not know this forum does exist. Then we would have to listen to his eneptness and EOL’s scewed or twisted logic. I can’t tell which I have to read.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jan 21, 2019)

LASTMAN14 said:


> He’s no different than many random posters on here. In fact it’s good he does not know this forum does exist. Then we would have to listen to his eneptness and EOL’s scewed or twisted logic. I can’t tell which I have to read.


Crap! EOL is not on this thread. Oh, well.


----------



## MWN (Jan 21, 2019)

LASTMAN14 said:


> He’s no different than many random posters on here. In fact it’s good he does not know this forum does exist. Then we would have to listen to his eneptness and EOL’s scewed or twisted logic. I can’t tell which I have to read.


I had never heard of this Ben Fast fellow until today, I perused a number of his articles and its clear that his agenda/bias against the MLS closed system and desire to establish Pro/Rel is blinding his ability to think objectively.  I watched 1/2 of one of his videos and he is just a kid that doesn't have an understanding of the economics and legalities of how it works.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jan 21, 2019)

MWN said:


> I had never heard of this Ben Fast fellow until today, I perused a number of his articles and its clear that his agenda/bias against the MLS closed system and desire to establish Pro/Rel is blinding his ability to think objectively.  I watched 1/2 of one of his videos and he is just a kid that doesn't have an understanding of the economics and legalities of how it works.


As many do. Most speak without any thing else other than an uneducated opinion.


----------



## younothat (Jan 22, 2019)

*John Pranjić*‏ @ThatCroatianGuy

The $$$ that average soccer parents invest in American soccer year after year is a far greater % of their total net worth compared to the billionaire MLS investors. No one wants to talk about that, though. We're just supposed to be thankful we have a professional league.

I support #ProRelforUSA and Solidarity Payments

Ben Fast*‏* @bwfast is a interesting fellow and has a different prospective  as does  *John Pranjić*‏ @ThatCroatianGuy who I tend to agree with more than not.   These people are trying to do something by getting there messages out, you can debate them all you want on twitter or try to add to the conversation.  Step up and provide solutions rather them calling them bias or uneducated.


----------



## outside! (Jan 22, 2019)

LASTMAN14 said:


> As many do. Most speak without any thing else other than an uneducated opinion.


Since those with "educated opinions" are running things so well, the rest of us should just be quiet.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Jan 22, 2019)

outside! said:


> Since those with "educated opinions" are running things so well, the rest of us should just be quiet.


No, I feel if  they just did some research to update one self and form an educated opinion from there.  Often many just shoot from the hip and/or emotion.


----------



## socalkdg (Jan 22, 2019)

Do soccer parents actually pay more than other sports?   I know Gymnastics, ice skating, and competitive dance cost about 5 times as much as soccer(older daughter costs me about $800 per month when everything is added up, and this is just for her enjoyment (and to keep her from boys).   When we do a tournament for basketball, which could sometimes be every other week, you would pay $50 for the tourney,   $15 to park each day,  and $10 each day to just watch.   $120 for a weekend tourney, or about $250 per month.  Then you have gym fees, coaches fees, etc.   Now at $400 per month.   Travel volleyball, lookout.   Here are some listed in a couple articles.  https://medium.com/@groundwork_bill/the-most-and-least-expensive-travel-sports-4f6664d3c2e2  and this one.  https://usatodayhss.com/2017/paying-to-play-how-much-do-club-sports-cost


----------



## socalkdg (Jan 22, 2019)

And it isn't just California.   Look at these costs from Utah.  
http://time.com/4913284/kids-sports-cost/


----------



## jpeter (Jan 22, 2019)

socalkdg said:


> And it isn't just California.   Look at these costs from Utah.
> http://time.com/4913284/kids-sports-cost/


Dang kids sports is a *15.3 billion *industry that nearly doubled in the last 10 and that's a old 17' study so likely even more now.

"In TIME’s cover story this week, senior writer Sean Gregory explores the growing business of kids’ sports — a $15.3 billion industry that has nearly doubled in the last 10 years. Between league fees, camps, equipment, training and travel, families are spending as much as 10% of their income on sports, according to survey research from Utah State University

Sky-high costs are preventing some kids from participating. Overall sports participation rates have declined in the U.S. in recent years, and the trend is most evident among kids from lower-income families"

“Some parents just can’t pony up for it,” says Travis Dorsch, one of Utah State’s leading researchers on parental involvement in youth sports. “How many Michael Jordans and Michael Phelpses are out there who don’t have the opportunity?”

Hockey, lacrosse, club volleyball and some cheerleading can be pretty expensive compared to soccer in my experience for the average but the max figure quoted $5,500 for soccer can be easily reached if you play in certain leagues or tournments considering the travel costs involved.

Makes you wonder what spot kids sports would be on the fortune 1000 or maybe the 500 list.  Either way $$$16billion is big business and would blow away the largest non profit in the US: United way at 3.7 billion.


----------



## MWN (Jan 22, 2019)

younothat said:


> *...* Step up and provide solutions rather them calling them bias or uneducated.


@younothat, I did step up and provide a solution.  I even spent considerable time educating folks on what Solidarity and Training Fee Payments are and how they work and directly impact the ability of youth clubs to provide "free" training.  The solution I articulated is that the MLS and Federation needs to rethink its stance on Solidarity and Training Fees and go to war with the MLS Players union on this issue.  They may even want to consider congressional action to circumvent the cloudy law on the issue.

I'm calling this Ben Fast fellow uneducated/biased because he just wrote an article on pay-to-play that completely ignores solidarity/training fees and instead cited Pro/Rel as the solution to eliminating pay-to-play.  I read the article and his logic was nonsensical and I chuckled a few times in disbelief.  Pro/Rel has no direct impact on pay-to-play, infact if Pro/Rel was the system we adopted 10 years ago, non-MLS clubs would still rely on pay-to-play because there are no incentives to provide free training.  MLS clubs have a single incentive ... the homegrown player exemption.

The Pro/Rel model is simply a marketing ploy to increase public interest in the sport, which may/may-not create additional market penetration.  Its actually a red-herring with little to no impact on pay-to-play at the youth level.  The argument against Pro/Rel from a marketing perspective is that the U.S. market would be unaffected as evidence by the fact that the MLS, NBA, MLB, and NHL are all "semi-closed systems" with no Pro/Rel.  

If Ben had a better understanding (more educated and less biased) he would be singling out the defects in the MLS single-entity model, which is the real problem.  The single entity model protects the clubs from loss and dissuades clubs from outspending and buying success (ala Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea, PSG, Real Madrid, etc.).


----------



## focomoso (Jan 23, 2019)

MWN said:


> If Ben had a better understanding (more educated and less biased) he would be singling out the defects in the MLS single-entity model, which is the real problem.  The single entity model protects the clubs from loss and dissuades clubs from outspending and buying success (ala Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea, PSG, Real Madrid, etc.).


He may not have written it well, but I suspect Mr. Fast is conflating pro/rel with breaking the single-entity model. You can't have a single-entity MLS if the MLS teams can be relegated out of the top tier. And I suspect he's also imagining that pro/rel would break the current solidarity/training fees model. With pro/rel, any small club can develop players with the hope of someday moving the team up or selling them to a bigger club to cover the cost.

I think, in the end, he's just saying, "make it like Europe" where they have pro/rel, no single-entity at the top (at least not the way we have) and where all clubs reap the benefits of training players to the top levels. His point, then, is that Europe also has pay-to-play, but it doesn't get in the way of development because it's only at the lower levels. 

Not saying I agree with him, just that that's what I think he's envisioning.


----------



## jpeter (Jan 23, 2019)

I appreciate everyone's opinions and  contributions regardless if I agree,like, or not because we all have different outlooks and experiences to share.

I went ahead and reread what the OP said along with the latest posted info also so not sure if opinions are changing or they just want to add to the conversation but hard to see any solutions offered that are workable.

I like solutions but most people seem to be one side or the other and nobody wants to meet in the middle or comprise to get a deal done.

One side is mostly anti-establishment (Bwfast)  and want to have big changes like #ProRelforUSA as do moderates like @ThatCroatianGuy, the other end is the establishment who will reference a bunch of legalese about why things need to stay the same and there is no other solutions unless laws are changed or whatever.

The current Pay-To-Play system is one of problem(s) IMO but not necessarily the solution to the others referenced.  Youth soccer exists without it just fine, in large parts of LA county there are more youth players playing outside the club environments than inside for example, don't have the articles handy but its not even close in numbers something like 500K+ youth players in much lower cost soccer environments even if the leagues are sanctioned or not.   Just like the time article posted says

"Sky-high costs are preventing some kids from participating. Overall sports participation rates have declined in the U.S. in recent years, and the trend is most evident among kids from lower-income families"
When you see this first hand its hard to argue with reality and noway is there anywhere near the amount of "free" training or academies that some people seem to think exists.   Some token scholarships by some clubs if they meet certain revenue thresholds and the "free" DA programs are few and far between.

As far as Solidarity Payments for youth clubs the establishment has used the legal system to circumvent that in the US and pretty much grab those $$$ even against the FIFA mandates,  is the US the only county that allows this?


----------



## jpeter (Jan 24, 2019)

For most clubs, losing a star like Frenkie De Jong would be a killer. For Ajax, it's their business model
http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog/espn-fc-united/68/post/3757094/for-most-clubs-losing-top-talent-is-a-killer-for-ajax-its-their-business-model

Talking to De Ligt, it's easy to forget he is a teenager, as age matters little at Ajax. If a player is good enough, he will be given a chance with the first team. It is a place anchored on progression. They have this mantra of the next challenge being one pitch away at their academy and training ground, called _De Toekomst_("The Future").

Every side, from the under-9s to the first team, train here. There are 12 pitches stretched out, a patch of green in the middle of motorways 5 miles from the Dam Square, the historical center of Amsterdam. Small grandstands hug the pitches where the teams play competitively, with a concrete hub -- laced in Ajax nostalgia -- in the middle where players change, eat and learn. Talent is rewarded with opportunity and every year the academy offers up another future superstar to the first team.

De Ligt has been at Ajax since he was 9 years old. "This is my home... it's really nice," he says. It is a chilly morning, the type where a cold wind manages to somehow invade your clothing. De Ligt has just finished training; sitting in his gold Ajax tracksuit top and shorts, he seems untroubled by the temperature and politely turns down the offer of a coat. He talks about the excitement of facing Real Madrid in the Champions League knockout stages and the chance to win the Dutch Eredivisie.

It is an annual challenge to navigate, but training just a pitch away from the first team will be the next De Ligt and the next De Jong itching to step up. And we will be back here in five years asking them the same question.

"Like Johan Cruyff once said, it's never a team that makes its debut, it's a single player, an individual," says Westerveld. "We need to develop individual players so every player within our academy has his own individual plan to make the steps needed to finally get in to the first team.

"We use our [academy] team more or less not to win games, but to try to develop as many individual players as possible."

Below the balcony, the under-13s are training as the thud of footballs against railings and sporadic words of guidance from coaches echo through the open door. The move they are practising breaks down, and the players, all of varying heights and at different stages of physical development, are called back to start again"

At De Toekomst, there are plans to expand to 17 pitches and update the facilities, including a 3,000-capacity stadium where Jong Ajax and the under-19s will play. The training ground also has a school where the under-14s to under-19s receive their education, while fitting in seven training sessions a week and a match on Saturday. The club provides cars to ferry them to and from De Toekomst. Those from under-8 to under-13 -- age groups are decided on years, rather than governed by school term structure -- typically come from in and around the Amsterdam area, with the farthest living 60 kilometres away. All 250 or so academy prospects have individual plans, but their coaches are constantly on the lookout for new talent.

Ajax have four full-time scouts working in and around the Netherlands looking for first-team players, and another four abroad. The youth scouting operation is anchored by eight professional youth scouts and a network of 90 volunteers who keep the club updated on players of all ages up and down the country. They are usually people who know the club, either through playing there or because of their knowledge of the Ajax system. Ajax typically seek the scouts out but occasionally they are approached.

"In Holland we say: 'Success has many fathers,'" Westerveld says. "Many will claim to have found the star. But for us it's a team effort."

If SUM,MLS, USSF (in business with the first two)  weren't obstructing this model in the US maybe things would be different and there could by a successful business model and real US based academies .


----------



## timbuck (Jan 24, 2019)

Do you think without MLS involved we have a chance of a youth academy having 17 fields and a complex all their own?
La Galaxy academy is the closest we have here in the US. From what I know (which isn’t much) the LA Galaxy academy is a flea on an elephant’s booty compared to Ajax, La Masai, etc. 
Its actually quite remarkable that there are any US players that are able to make a 1st team in Europe.  Even more remarkable that it’s a big deal that we DIDNT qualify for the last World Cup.


----------



## jpeter (Jan 24, 2019)

timbuck said:


> Do you think without MLS involved we have a chance of a youth academy having 17 fields and a complex all their own?
> La Galaxy academy is the closest we have here in the US. From what I know (which isn’t much) the LA Galaxy academy is a flea on an elephant’s booty compared to Ajax, La Masai, etc.
> Its actually quite remarkable that there are any US players that are able to make a 1st team in Europe.  Even more remarkable that it’s a big deal that we DIDNT qualify for the last World Cup.


Well the LA Galaxy academy doesn't even have 4 fields, they rent them from the lease holders or get them from  MLS parent business side.  They spend 4million or more on there youth academy last reports and there best player walked away from free to play in Europe.
Alex Mendez.
https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2018/12/19/18147808/alex-mendez-named-us-soccer-young-male-player-of-the-year&ved=2ahUKEwjv5LKzrYfgAhXHxFQKHStNBhAQFjAPegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1yPBgr8zohiXJ_XaiGQnet

He spent a big part of his youth with other clubs so 3 years at the Galaxy did help him but only fraction whatever that maybe?


----------

