# A history of DA and the progression to MLS Next



## Dargle (Nov 15, 2022)

Interesting read to understand how this all started.  









						How a controversial youth soccer overhaul put the USMNT on a path toward World Cup contention
					

Fifteen years ago, after diagnosing American soccer’s developmental ills, U.S. Soccer launched its Development Academy. Many believe, that solution is beginning to bear fruit.




					sports.yahoo.com


----------



## jojon (Nov 15, 2022)

good article and most are true. Interesting there is no mention of Klinsmann. It is a very positive remark for US Soccer/Sunil.
Perhaps this is the best we can do with the talents that we have (which is upper middle class kids that can afford to join clubs from U8 thru U15). I say upper middle class because spending $5000/year (club fee + travel + gas + time away from work 3-4 times a week) is only for families with at least $100k/year income.
We probably already reached our maximum results with the "pay for play" model.
Our talent pool is comparable to tennis while the rest of the world can rely almost 100% of their kids try soccer first. It is very rare that kids that have soccer talent will choose any other sports. Erling Haaland will be in NFL for sure


----------



## RedDevilDad (Nov 16, 2022)

Some of us are healing...  why u rip open old wounds? lol.


----------



## espola (Nov 16, 2022)

This article sounds like the team has already won the World Cup.


----------



## lafalafa (Nov 16, 2022)

Concept and start was good.

Financial arrangements with USsoccer, SUM and regular or even MLS organizations not so much.

Spending $4 million+ on "academy" programs and not producing or signing first team players is a investment that's easy to question.   Players leaving for free or peanuts to MX, Euro, and other leagues in all most lost multiple millions every year, regular clubs didn't have resources to complete.

At least some of those lessions have been learned hopefully with NEXT, PRO, U23 so yeah future for that does look interesting


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 16, 2022)

lafalafa said:


> Concept and start was good.
> 
> Financial arrangements with USsoccer, SUM and regular or even MLS organizations not so much.
> 
> ...


Players leaving for Europe is one of the main reasons we have the pool that we have right now.



jojon said:


> good article and most are true. Interesting there is no mention of Klinsmann. It is a very positive remark for US Soccer/Sunil.
> Perhaps this is the best we can do with the talents that we have (which is upper middle class kids that can afford to join clubs from U8 thru U15). I say upper middle class because spending $5000/year (club fee + travel + gas + time away from work 3-4 times a week) is only for families with at least $100k/year income.
> We probably already reached our maximum results with the "pay for play" model.
> Our talent pool is comparable to tennis while the rest of the world can rely almost 100% of their kids try soccer first. It is very rare that kids that have soccer talent will choose any other sports. Erling Haaland will be in NFL for sure


Given the way MLS Next is organized, except for the handful of players recruited into the MLS Academies at start and YoY thereafter, most of the pay or play clubs are being written off.  Their main significance is what they do to get players ready at U11 and below.  The article highlights that....the goal of the MLS academies is to train several hours every day....even the MLS Next with kids in regular school can't compete with the hours of Academy players in Europe which are off the academic track there.


----------



## espola (Nov 16, 2022)

Think of the millions diverted to corrupt officials such as Chuck Blazer and friends and how that money could have been employed to fix the weaknesses of the ODP system as it existed then.  Following the example of the Bradenton residential camp in a broader way (say, for instance, feeder camps in each region) would have broadened the influence of what was being done right there.  Instead, we had hit or miss programs that sometimes turned out well, but mostly just wasted good talent.

My experience with the DA programs from a San Diego County perspective is that the clubs who were in the program just used it as another recruiting tool, to the degree that some ODP coaches were dismissed for such behavior.


----------



## Socal-Soccer-Dad (Nov 16, 2022)

Dargle said:


> Interesting read to understand how this all started.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good article.

But as much as I want us to win.... "a World Cup contention" may be a bit much. I think we are a long ways from that...


----------



## crush (Nov 17, 2022)

jojon said:


> good article and most are true. Interesting there is no mention of Klinsmann. It is a very positive remark for US Soccer/Sunil.
> Perhaps this is the best we can do with the talents that we have (which is upper middle class kids that can afford to join clubs from U8 thru U15). I say upper middle class because spending $5000/year (club fee + travel + gas + time away from work 3-4 times a week) is only for families with at least $100k/year income.
> We probably already reached our maximum results with the "pay for play" model.
> Our talent pool is comparable to tennis while the rest of the world can rely almost 100% of their kids try soccer first. It is very rare that kids that have soccer talent will choose any other sports. Erling Haaland will be in NFL for sure


Soccer in America is like a country club for *members only* and you best better have lot's of money to pay so your kid can play. This sport is only open for Upper Middle Class to only the Uppers. If you don't have any money for country club soccer, you best better have a very talented baller who can score so the rich dads at the country club can sponsor and pay so your kid can play. Pay to play system is not going to win a world cup, moo!


----------



## Socal-Soccer-Dad (Nov 17, 2022)

crush said:


> Pay to play system is not going to win a world cup, moo!


Agree with you. Unfortunately, pay to play will continue as long as soccer isn't the #1 sport in America in my opinion (which presumably will be forever - who is going to unseat American football?)

There are "free to play" for talented kids - MLS academies. What we need is more of them - MLS academies to start earlier, USL to have their own fully funded academies - but is there enough money in American soccer to warrant it? It's gotten pretty popular in recent years but it's still pretty far down the list for most American sports fans. 

I just think there just isn't enough money in it (vs Europe for example). Maybe that'll change.


----------



## aong cangkol (Nov 17, 2022)

Socal-Soccer-Dad said:


> There are "free to play" for talented kids - MLS academies. What we need is more of them - MLS academies to start earlier, USL to have their own fully funded academies - but is there enough money in American soccer to warrant it? It's gotten pretty popular in recent years but it's still pretty far down the list for most American sports fans.


Expanding and adding "free" MLS academies will definitely produce better US soccer players.
However, I do not see any effort from US Soccer in implementing "free" or at least affordable play for U8-U13 to feed the MLS academies. 
Imagine if all top colleges (Stanford, Harvard, MIT, UCLA, UCB, etc.) are free of tuition but there are only private K-12 education available and the only discussion by the government is about how to create more free colleges instead of free K-12 education.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 17, 2022)

aong cangkol said:


> Expanding and adding "free" MLS academies will definitely produce better US soccer players.
> However, I do not see any effort from US Soccer in implementing "free" or at least affordable play for U8-U13 to feed the MLS academies.
> Imagine if all top colleges (Stanford, Harvard, MIT, UCLA, UCB, etc.) are free of tuition but there are only private K-12 education available and the only discussion by the government is about how to create more free colleges instead of free K-12 education.


European academies are moving younger and younger.  I think some countries are now as young as U8.  The MLS is gradually doing the same.  U12 LAFC and Galaxy play EA.  The headwind is the expense, especially considering the MLS academies haven't been exactly a rip roaring success at producing pro players yet and even the European academies make a lot of mistakes when picking out players that young.

Eventually they'll be forced to do it, though, because the pay to play clubs have already been written off except as cannon fodder and recruitment pools (the AYSO rec players are a long forgotten afterthought).  The reason why is because in Europe they have separate academic, sports and arts tracks.  There's just no way you can have a kid on both tracks if the requirement is 4-6 hours of training per day (depending on the age).  And if you don't put in those hours, you'll quickly fall behind the European counterparts.

Free/affordable play for the U8-U13 masses looks like AYSO.  It's a model that failed because everyone was forced to play together (from the future superstar to the handicapped kid) and there just wasn't enough soccer knowledge in the US to furnish all those volunteer coaches.  Coaches have to be paid to incentivize training, requiring decent fields with lights (like ECNL/MLS requires) is expensive.  There are also the other incidental requirements such as travel (if you want to not dilute talent), uniforms, experienced 3 ref crews (given the constant complaints about ref quality or refs not showing up), cameras and medical trainers. 

You can have your youth soccer competitive, developmental or accessible.  Pick 2.


----------



## Socal-Soccer-Dad (Nov 17, 2022)

aong cangkol said:


> Expanding and adding "free" MLS academies will definitely produce better US soccer players.
> However, I do not see any effort from US Soccer in implementing "free" or at least affordable play for U8-U13 to feed the MLS academies.
> Imagine if all top colleges (Stanford, Harvard, MIT, UCLA, UCB, etc.) are free of tuition but there are only private K-12 education available and the only discussion by the government is about how to create more free colleges instead of free K-12 education.


Ideally you don't need a separate entity at U8-U13 feeding into MLS academies. 
You'd want MLS academies to have free teams all the way down to U8. 
And probably down to USL level as well. 
And I agree, this still isn't a lot of teams but it's a lot better in that there is always a free option for the truly talented kids who don't have the financial means to go through years of club soccer. 

I don't think US as a soccer market can yet support this level of investment however.


----------



## aong cangkol (Nov 18, 2022)

Grace T. said:


> European academies are moving younger and younger.  I think some countries are now as young as U8.  The MLS is gradually doing the same.  U12 LAFC and Galaxy play EA.  The headwind is the expense, especially considering the MLS academies haven't been exactly a rip roaring success at producing pro players yet and even the European academies make a lot of mistakes when picking out players that young.
> 
> Eventually they'll be forced to do it, though, because the pay to play clubs have already been written off except as cannon fodder and recruitment pools (the AYSO rec players are a long forgotten afterthought).  The reason why is because in Europe they have separate academic, sports and arts tracks.  There's just no way you can have a kid on both tracks if the requirement is 4-6 hours of training per day (depending on the age).  And if you don't put in those hours, you'll quickly fall behind the European counterparts.
> 
> ...


Writing off pay to play clubs mean relying only on MLS to U8. I don't think it would happen due to cost. Too costly for parents and too costly for MLS clubs to make it free or affordable ($100/month or less).
I have more hopes for AYSO. US Soccer can take it over and giving out free coaching seminar/license for the volunteer parents (at least the AYSO extra/all-star/premier).  
Another idea is to use existing structure. USA may have the best public school fields in the world. No need to build new fields. US Soccer can provide free FIFA coaching licenses to all PE teachers (I am sure most of them are willing). They can lead soccer practice at public middle/elementary schools 3-4x/week for a minimal fee. Since the PE teacher already have salary and benefit from school, $50/kid should be sufficient to add to their income. 
US Soccer subsidy would only be coaching certification and maybe insurance because schools are really afraid of injury happen in their facility.


----------



## aong cangkol (Nov 18, 2022)

Socal-Soccer-Dad said:


> Ideally you don't need a separate entity at U8-U13 feeding into MLS academies.
> You'd want MLS academies to have free teams all the way down to U8.
> And probably down to USL level as well.
> And I agree, this still isn't a lot of teams but it's a lot better in that there is always a free option for the truly talented kids who don't have the financial means to go through years of club soccer.
> ...


Yeah, maybe US market cannot support it. Within this current system/environment, we may improve a little bit but the idea of winning a world cup is unrealistic.
Looking at youth basketball landscape, they are not necessarily affordable either. The difference between soccer and basketball is that you can pickup a basketball at 12 and become an NBA superstar. Giannis starts playing basketball at 13.
If Messi starts playing at 13, he may be good enough to play for UCLA but that is it. Even MLS level would be questionable for him.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 21, 2022)

aong cangkol said:


> Writing off pay to play clubs mean relying only on MLS to U8. I don't think it would happen due to cost. Too costly for parents and too costly for MLS clubs to make it free or affordable ($100/month or less).
> I have more hopes for AYSO. US Soccer can take it over and giving out free coaching seminar/license for the volunteer parents (at least the AYSO extra/all-star/premier).
> Another idea is to use existing structure. USA may have the best public school fields in the world. No need to build new fields. US Soccer can provide free FIFA coaching licenses to all PE teachers (I am sure most of them are willing). They can lead soccer practice at public middle/elementary schools 3-4x/week for a minimal fee. Since the PE teacher already have salary and benefit from school, $50/kid should be sufficient to add to their income.
> US Soccer subsidy would only be coaching certification and maybe insurance because schools are really afraid of injury happen in their facility.


The main problem with AYSO is that they are very jealous of their turf (they could have been integrated into the system as part of the player development reforms) and their philosophy (everyone plays).  Their materials and coaching seminars are already excellent (far better than the CalSouth stuff in my opinion, at least for the youngers).  Can't see AYSO ever agreeing to sublimate their structure and philosophy to the wider US soccer goal.  There's also only so much you can do with the materials if the parents have played.


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Nov 21, 2022)

Maybe if colleges paid their players what they're actually worth there would be incentive for youngers to do soccer over other sports.

This is truly what's holding things back. Top USA talent is forgoing college entirely to play for MLS teams. Which is dumb because MLS is not seperate clubs + has salary caps.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 21, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> Maybe if colleges paid their players what they're actually worth there would be incentive for youngers to do soccer over other sports.


For virtually all women’s sports that number is zero, certain things like limited elite gymnastics, figure skating, and cheer excepted.
For men’s college soccer it ain’t much better

there’s a reason mls base salary is something like $65k last I saw it. That’s a lot of money for someone from Jamaica. Not for a us talent weighing med or law school alternatives.


----------



## espola (Nov 21, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> Maybe if colleges paid their players what they're actually worth there would be incentive for youngers to do soccer over other sports.
> 
> This is truly what's holding things back. Top USA talent is forgoing college entirely to play for MLS teams. Which is dumb because MLS is not seperate clubs + has salary caps.


What are they actually worth?


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Nov 21, 2022)

espola said:


> What are they actually worth?


Whatever the college will pay. 

I assume at first that the amout paid would be equivalent to the "value" of a scholarship.

Top players would earn much more $$$.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 22, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> Whatever the college will pay.
> 
> I assume at first that the amout paid would be equivalent to the "value" of a scholarship.
> 
> Top players would earn much more $$$.


The "value" of the scholarship for women is distorted because of Title IX.  It creates an artificial need for women athletes to match overbloated football programs, which soccer in particular (being a large team sport) fills.  Title IX, however, may (probably?) won't extend if you pay the athletes salaries (depending on the structure) because now you aren't talking education, but professional sports.  Again, the value for most women athletes will be zero.

Even then, for both the men and women, much of the soccer scholarship is funneled through academic scholarships to get around limitations on sports scholarships.  There isn't much sports value here either.  Really the scholarship is a premium being paid to the student to go to a lower ranked school than a higher ranked school at which they'd be required to pay full freight.  It's a tuition discount, which doesn't translate necessarily to money out the door, because there's a difference between how people (and accountants) value unearned discounted income v. expenses out the door.  That's why it's easier for merchants, for example to offer BOGOs or sales, than it is to just mark down their prices.

Yes, the top female soccer players would earn more $$$ (to the complete detriment BTW of the USWNT because Europe has definitively now caught up, if not yet surpassed the US, through its professional academy system in just a handful of world cup cycles).  They would likely only be a handful of players at each of the very most competitive D1 schools.


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Nov 22, 2022)

Grace T. said:


> The "value" of the scholarship for women is distorted because of Title IX.  It creates an artificial need for women athletes to match overbloated football programs, which soccer in particular (being a large team sport) fills.  Title IX, however, may (probably?) won't extend if you pay the athletes salaries (depending on the structure) because now you aren't talking education, but professional sports.  Again, the value for most women athletes will be zero.
> 
> Even then, for both the men and women, much of the soccer scholarship is funneled through academic scholarships to get around limitations on sports scholarships.  There isn't much sports value here either.  Really the scholarship is a premium being paid to the student to go to a lower ranked school than a higher ranked school at which they'd be required to pay full freight.  It's a tuition discount, which doesn't translate necessarily to money out the door, because there's a difference between how people (and accountants) value unearned discounted income v. expenses out the door.  That's why it's easier for merchants, for example to offer BOGOs or sales, than it is to just mark down their prices.
> 
> Yes, the top female soccer players would earn more $$$ (to the complete detriment BTW of the USWNT because Europe has definitively now caught up, if not yet surpassed the US, through its professional academy system in just a handful of world cup cycles).  They would likely only be a handful of players at each of the very most competitive D1 schools.


All you need to do is make College attendance mandatory to play on the team. Then pay the players an equivalent to the tuition cost.

If players can get academic scholarships that can be applied to the tuition so be it. If this happens the player pockets the difference.

Paying players is 100% possible. Colleges just dont want to do it because they like to control students + hold scholarships over them.


----------



## espola (Nov 22, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> Whatever the college will pay.
> 
> I assume at first that the amout paid would be equivalent to the "value" of a scholarship.
> 
> Top players would earn much more $$$.


If a player gets cash instead of a scholarship, doesn't he have to turn around and pay that back to the college for the expenses no longer covered by his scholarship?

One of the reasons the NCAA was founded was to prevent the blatantly unappetizing prospect of the wealthier colleges buying up all the better players.


----------



## espola (Nov 22, 2022)

So many half-baked ideas on this thread.


----------



## aong cangkol (Nov 22, 2022)

Initiatives that involves college is not going to improve the situation. The problem is in U8 - U13.
If US as a society really wants to educate their soccer players, we can make  US Soccer pays tuition for all players ever called up by USYNT at any school of his/her choosing. Free tuition should be the incentive but you cannot lower academic standard for college acceptance.


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Nov 22, 2022)

espola said:


> If a player gets cash instead of a scholarship, doesn't he have to turn around and pay that back to the college for the expenses no longer covered by his scholarship?


Yes + theres nothing wrong with that.

At the end of the day you have the same situation. Player funds college education by on field performance.

The difference is if payed $$$ players can unionize + have representation + take coaches to court if they harass players, etc. Right now colleges hold all the cards with scholarships.


> One of the reasons the NCAA was founded was to prevent the blatantly unappetizing prospect of the wealthier colleges buying up all the better players.


I dont see the problem with this. Colleges that want to win will pay for top talent. Colleges that want to just exist will offer tuition costs.

People dont understand how much money colleges make. Paying players vs scholarships will not break their bank. Sports people get peanuts + thank colleges for the little they receive.


----------



## espola (Nov 22, 2022)

aong cangkol said:


> Initiatives that involves college is not going to improve the situation. The problem is in U8 - U13.
> If US as a society really wants to educate their soccer players, we can make  US Soccer pays tuition for all players ever called up by USYNT at any school of his/her choosing. Free tuition should be the incentive but you cannot lower academic standard for college acceptance.





Carlsbad7 said:


> Yes + theres nothing wrong with that.
> 
> At the end of the day you have the same situation. Player funds college education by on field performance.
> 
> ...


How much money do college soccer programs make?


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Nov 22, 2022)

espola said:


> How much money do college soccer programs make?


It's not about the amount soccer teams generate. Very few male or female college sports teams generate revenue and are cash positive.

Look at how much professors make on average...

"The base salary for Professor at University of California, Los Angeles range from $85,132 to $176,474 with the *average base salary of $101,934*."

Look at how much admins make on average...

"The average College Administrator salary in California is $80,412 as of October 27, 2022, but the range typically falls between *$59,347 and $101,478*."

Roll in the retirement benefits + that leadership makes a bunch more than the average.

Either way if colleges pay the players equivalent to tuition. The money just funnels back into the college. Colleges just dont want players to have rights + the ability to unionize + have representation.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 22, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> Yes + theres nothing wrong with that.
> 
> At the end of the day you have the same situation. Player funds college education by on field performance.
> 
> ...


Rarely ever agree with espola but have to agree here....half-baked:

1.  Most college soccer teams aren't potential money makers  If they become a for profit venture almost all except the highest of the girls D1 programs (maybe) instantly become money losers.
2. There's a difference in how the internal accounting treats scholarships (which are a basically a tuition discount which is unrealized income) v. salaries (which are an expense....and not just an expense but an expense on which benefits and fringes need to be paid, particularly if there's a union).  It is easier for an enterprise from an economic point of view to offer a discount on income in, than it is to cut a check for income out.  It's doubly so for an academic institution which is based on fundraising...it has to cover its costs or go bankrupt....if income in falls short, well that's what fundraising is for, and what the colleges in fact do, which is to charge regular freight kids (who might barely get into the institution) a markup to cover those shortfalls.
3. You ignore the fact that many of those scholarships are really masked as academic scholarships.  Paying a salary means that mask no longer takes place.
4. Paying a salary likely separates this out from Title IX protections, which are the only thing that is making girls sports in demand.  Making it a requirement to attend the institution doesn't solve for this since again that's a salary being drawn by the student for services, instead of an academic benefit covered by Title IX.  You might get a court to agree to your interpretation, but then that torpedoes the entire incentive for schools to do this, because the incentive is to direct more money to men's football and basketball which has a marketable value, not women's soccer which has none.
5. You just converted that nice tax free benefit to the players into taxable income.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 22, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> It's not about the amount soccer teams generate. Very few male or female college sports teams generate revenue and are cash positive.
> 
> Look at how much professors make on average...
> 
> ...


You seem to be under the mistaken fallacy that colleges are an operation geared to the welfare of students (which are the consumers of the product) rather than the admins and professors (which are the stakeholders of the operation).


----------



## espola (Nov 22, 2022)

Grace T. said:


> You seem to be under the mistaken fallacy that colleges are an operation geared to the welfare of students (which are the consumers of the product) rather than the admins and professors (which are the stakeholders of the operation).


I wrote an editorial for the campus weekly paper (Clarkson Integrator) with a similar theme.

Back in 1968.


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Nov 22, 2022)

Keep in mind that the USWNT said something needs to change + you're arguing that everything stays the same.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 22, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> Keep in mind that the USWNT said something needs to change + you're arguing that everything stays the same.


The only thing that can save the uswnt long term is if the us finds a way to shift to an academy system for women…a max of 1 in la and 1 in San Diego for SoCal. Otherwise 6 -8hrs a week v 5-6 hours a day in Europe ain’t going to cut it


----------



## Carlsbad7 (Nov 22, 2022)

Grace T. said:


> The only thing that can save the uswnt long term is if the us finds a way to shift to an academy system for women…a max of 1 in la and 1 in San Diego for SoCal. Otherwise 6 -8hrs a week v 5-6 hours a day in Europe ain’t going to cut it


If colleges pay their players + are going all in for top talent (meaning paying more that tuition) they can counter European/World club training.


----------



## Grace T. (Nov 22, 2022)

Carlsbad7 said:


> If colleges pay their players + are going all in for top talent (meaning paying more that tuition) they can counter European/World club training.


Then they aren’t sending their students to classes because there’s no time on a year round schedule. Right now college training in the us is a limited season with mixed quality of coaching with limited practice and a limited number of games. It’s why the men could never field effective teams with college players against academy based countries. 

And that’s before you get to the main problem which is the academy in Europe at age 11-17 are practicing 4 growing to 8 hours a day as they get older.  even a surf olders team practicing 4-5 times a week can’t compete with that because players need time to go to school and do homework which academy players don’t need to worry about because they are off the college track.   Unless the colleges start recruiting and training players at age 11-13 this doesn’t solve the problem.


----------

