# Steve Gans Dissects the DA vs. ECNL Turf War



## Airborn (May 30, 2019)

https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/82444/steve-gans-dissects-the-da-vs-ecnl-turf-war-that.html


----------



## espola (May 30, 2019)

Airborn said:


> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/82444/steve-gans-dissects-the-da-vs-ecnl-turf-war-that.html


What did he say?


----------



## timbuck (May 30, 2019)

He used a lot of very big words.  He said what everyone else has said "the 2 leagues are hurting overall development of top talent".
Then he said he thinks that state associations should sue US Soccer.  (Shocker that a lawyer would want this).


----------



## Dos Equis (May 30, 2019)

timbuck said:


> He used a lot of very big words.  He said what everyone else has said "the 2 leagues are hurting overall development of top talent".
> Then he said he thinks that state associations should sue US Soccer.  (Shocker that a lawyer would want this).


I read that a bit differently, he was stating what he would do if he was President of US Soccer.  I believe he is suggesting that US Soccer engage outside counsel with the goal of suing other sanctioning bodies (ECNL, US Club Soccer, etc).   The specious argument he would like to make is that they are operating outside of their non-profit mandates.  He is assuming they are, or wants to use the legal system to try to discover if they are. It is a shocking and sad suggestion, essentially advocating that since US Soccer has not been able to force the best players into the DA by fiat, nor by providing the best product, they should effectuate that by shutting down other options through threat of or actual legal action.


----------



## Glen (May 30, 2019)

Dos Equis said:


> I read that a bit differently, he was stating what he would do if he was President of US Soccer.  I believe he is suggesting that US Soccer engage outside counsel with the goal of suing other sanctioning bodies (ECNL, US Club Soccer, etc).   The specious argument he would like to make is that they are operating outside of their non-profit mandates.  He is assuming they are, or wants to use the legal system to try to discover if they are. It is a shocking and sad suggestion, essentially advocating that since US Soccer has not been able to force the best players into the DA by fiat, nor by providing the best product, they should effectuate that by shutting down other options through threat of or actual legal action.


It's probably not a specious argument.  But it's a little ironic since US Soccer (otherwise known as Nike) is more likely operating outside of its non-profit mandate.  These "non-profits" are all pretty disgusting.


----------



## espola (May 30, 2019)

Glen said:


> It's probably not a specious argument.  But it's a little ironic since US Soccer (otherwise known as Nike) is more likely operating outside of its non-profit mandate.  These "non-profits" are all pretty disgusting.


One get still get quite wealthy running a fully legal "non-profit", as long as there is a compliant board of directors overseeing the process, for one example.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (May 30, 2019)

espola said:


> One get still get quite wealthy running a fully legal "non-profit", as long as there is a compliant board of directors overseeing the process, for one example.


Like the Goodwill.


----------



## espola (May 30, 2019)

LASTMAN14 said:


> Like the Goodwill.


Actually, I was thinking more of the situation at the San Diego Red Cross a few years ago, but I am sure they have corrected those problems by now.


----------



## timbuck (May 30, 2019)

Dos Equis said:


> I read that a bit differently, he was stating what he would do if he was President of US Soccer.  I believe he is suggesting that US Soccer engage outside counsel with the goal of suing other sanctioning bodies (ECNL, US Club Soccer, etc).   The specious argument he would like to make is that they are operating outside of their non-profit mandates.  He is assuming they are, or wants to use the legal system to try to discover if they are. It is a shocking and sad suggestion, essentially advocating that since US Soccer has not been able to force the best players into the DA by fiat, nor by providing the best product, they should effectuate that by shutting down other options through threat of or actual legal action.


Had to re-read it.  I think you are correct.  Whenever I see "lawsuit" and "soccer" in the same paragraph,  I automatically think its someone going after US Soccer (seems to be a pretty popular thing to do)

Here is part of this response when asked what he would do if we was elected to President of US Soccer (he ran as one of 8 candidates and lost to Carlos "I kick with my Toe" Cordeiro):

_"Another thing I would do is engage outside counsel to research what legally could be done to readjust things and get matters moving in the right direction. Most of the key players on the youth side are non-profit organizations, and surely their main stated corporate purposes are to provide healthy playing opportunities for kids, to foster enjoyment of the sport, and to further positive player development. Non-profit organizations are governed by respective state Attorneys General, and to the extent that a non-profit has strayed from its stated corporate purpose, there are severe possible sanctions. The last thing U.S. Soccer needs right now is another lawsuit to contend with, but as I believe we are at a tipping point with respect to youth soccer, the pursuit of legal means to make things better ought to be a consideration._

Is he saying that State governing bodies (IE: Cal South) should be taken to court by US Soccer?  Or that some of the clubs should be?

I've said in other threads that we just need one pissed off parent with enough time and money to blow this whole house of cards apart in So Cal.


----------



## younothat (May 31, 2019)

Dos Equis said:


> I read that a bit differently, he was stating what he would do if he was President of US Soccer.  I believe he is suggesting that US Soccer engage outside counsel with the goal of suing other sanctioning bodies (ECNL, US Club Soccer, etc).   The specious argument he would like to make is that they are operating outside of their non-profit mandates.  He is assuming they are, or wants to use the legal system to try to discover if they are. It is a shocking and sad suggestion, essentially advocating that since US Soccer has not been able to force the best players into the DA by fiat, nor by providing the best product, they should effectuate that by shutting down other options through threat of or actual legal action.


Funny thing is US soccer is operating outside no-profit mandates with the SUM marketing deals, sanctioning, equal pay for women, violations of FIFA mandates, etc so maybe a third party should investigate and audit them  and they would stop acting like a MOB.


----------



## Messi>CR7 (May 31, 2019)

timbuck said:


> Is he saying that State governing bodies (IE: Cal South) should be taken to court by US Soccer?  Or that some of the clubs should be?
> 
> I've said in other threads that we just need one pissed off parent with enough time and money to blow this whole house of cards apart in So Cal.


Not for profit in youth soccer..........here is a picture that's worth a thousand words.



I know we all participate in youth sports by our own free choice, and my kids have been blessed with having great coaches.  But stupid things like this just piss people off.  Same hoodie from the same online store, but one club marks it up 35%!

Kudos to SoCal Academy/LA Surf for not sticking it to the kids/parents.


----------



## watfly (May 31, 2019)

Messi>CR7 said:


> Not for profit in youth soccer..........here is a picture that's worth a thousand words.
> 
> View attachment 4815
> 
> ...


C'mon now, the font sizes for "Surf" are clearly different. 

On another note, I would recommend that US Soccer take care of it's own house before suing other soccer organizations.


----------



## End of the Line (May 31, 2019)

Messi>CR7 said:


> Not for profit in youth soccer..........here is a picture that's worth a thousand words.
> 
> View attachment 4815
> 
> ...


This kind of thinking is irresponsible.  Even assuming SD Surf is receiving the higher mark-up, as opposed to a third party vendor, you are taking this completely out of context.  SD Surf has expenses that far exceed LA Surf expenses and provides services that LA Surf only dreams about.  Simply because SD Surf apparently decided to charge more for hoodies than LA Surf, it only means that SD Surf has decided to leverage that one product as a means to increase revenue to pay for the additional services that SD Surf provides and LA Surf does not.  And, go figure, they can because the SD Surf brand is far more valuable than the LA Surf brand.  It is quite possible you're getting cheaper snacks at SD Surf events because SD Surf is making its money from hoodie sales instead of hot dogs. It's quite possible that SD Surf has events that LA Surf doesn't (and can't) in part because SD Surf charges more for hoodies.  Regardless, it is also quite likely that you're getting benefits out of SD Surf (like better coaching, better events, better exposure to colleges) than LA Surf by virtue of the additional revenue it receives from apparel sales.  If you don't want to pay $60.73 for a hoodie, don't.  If the two have the exact same value to you and you need a hoodie, buy the LA Surf one.

SD Surf is a pretty good club that does a lot of good things for a lot of people, and that takes money.  But if you want SD Surf to be a crap club like LA Surf, I'm sure selling hoodies at cost is a great way to do it.


----------



## MR.D (May 31, 2019)

End of the Line said:


> This kind of thinking is irresponsible.  Even assuming SD Surf is receiving the higher mark-up, as opposed to a third party vendor, you are taking this completely out of context.  SD Surf has expenses that far exceed LA Surf expenses and provides services that LA Surf only dreams about.  Simply because SD Surf apparently decided to charge more for hoodies than LA Surf, it only means that SD Surf has decided to leverage that one product as a means to increase revenue to pay for the additional services that SD Surf provides and LA Surf does not.  And, go figure, they can because the SD Surf brand is far more valuable than the LA Surf brand.  It is quite possible you're getting cheaper snacks at SD Surf events because SD Surf is making its money from hoodie sales instead of hot dogs. It's quite possible that SD Surf has events that LA Surf doesn't (and can't) in part because SD Surf charges more for hoodies.  Regardless, it is also quite likely that you're getting benefits out of SD Surf (like better coaching, better events, better exposure to colleges) than LA Surf by virtue of the additional revenue it receives from apparel sales.  If you don't want to pay $60.73 for a hoodie, don't.  If the two have the exact same value to you and you need a hoodie, buy the LA Surf one.
> 
> SD Surf is a pretty good club that does a lot of good things for a lot of people, and that takes money.  But if you want SD Surf to be a crap club like LA Surf, I'm sure selling hoodies at cost is a great way to do it.


How do you figure LA Surf to be "Crap Club"?


----------



## watfly (May 31, 2019)

End of the Line said:


> This kind of thinking is irresponsible.  Even assuming SD Surf is receiving the higher mark-up, as opposed to a third party vendor, you are taking this completely out of context.  SD Surf has expenses that far exceed LA Surf expenses and provides services that LA Surf only dreams about.  Simply because SD Surf apparently decided to charge more for hoodies than LA Surf, it only means that SD Surf has decided to leverage that one product as a means to increase revenue to pay for the additional services that SD Surf provides and LA Surf does not.  And, go figure, they can because the SD Surf brand is far more valuable than the LA Surf brand.  It is quite possible you're getting cheaper snacks at SD Surf events because SD Surf is making its money from hoodie sales instead of hot dogs. It's quite possible that SD Surf has events that LA Surf doesn't (and can't) in part because SD Surf charges more for hoodies.  Regardless, it is also quite likely that you're getting benefits out of SD Surf (like better coaching, better events, better exposure to colleges) than LA Surf by virtue of the additional revenue it receives from apparel sales.  If you don't want to pay $60.73 for a hoodie, don't.  If the two have the exact same value to you and you need a hoodie, buy the LA Surf one.
> 
> SD Surf is a pretty good club that does a lot of good things for a lot of people, and that takes money.  But if you want SD Surf to be a crap club like LA Surf, I'm sure selling hoodies at cost is a great way to do it.


So what your saying is the Kool-Aid is bluer at San Diego Surf than at Los Angeles Surf?

The claim that SD Surf may provide more misses the point and is just a rationalization.  Parents,whether in SD or LA, Murrieta, OC, are being sold the successful Surf brand and everything that comes with it.  Parent's outside of SD aren't being told they are getting Surf Lite and instead they are being sold the full meal deal but only getting the fries.  It's this kind of deception that pisses people off.  Fortunately, most of us are informed enough to realize that a Surf affiliate bears no resemblance, other than the logo on the jersey, to the original San Diego Surf. (Actually San Dieguito Surf)


----------



## timbuck (May 31, 2019)

My understasnding of surf affiliates is that there is no “franshise fee” or other payment to the mothership. 
But that SD surf gets a % back from all soccer.com sales.


----------



## RocketFile (May 31, 2019)

watfly said:


> So what your saying is the Kool-Aid is bluer at San Diego Surf than at Los Angeles Surf?
> 
> The claim that SD Surf may provide more misses the point and is just a rationalization.  Parents,whether in SD or LA, Murrieta, OC, are being sold the successful Surf brand and everything that comes with it.  Parent's outside of SD aren't being told they are getting Surf Lite and instead they are being sold the full meal deal but only getting the fries.  It's this kind of deception that pisses people off.  Fortunately, most of us are informed enough to realize that a Surf affiliate bears no resemblance, other than the logo on the jersey, to the original San Diego Surf. (Actually San Dieguito Surf)


Sounds like you don't know very much about the affiliate program.


----------



## futboldad1 (May 31, 2019)

RocketFile said:


> Sounds like you don't know very much about the affiliate program.


What's incorrect with what watfly said? On the girls side OC Surf is the only affiliate to have DA and that's because they already had ECNL when they were WC. Loved my DDs many years with SD Surf but I do think the overall brand "Surf" is cheapened nowadays to the point of being a negative. SD has all the top players  so will always do well but OC look to be worse than when they were West Coast..............


----------



## espola (May 31, 2019)

watfly said:


> So what your saying is the Kool-Aid is bluer at San Diego Surf than at Los Angeles Surf?
> 
> The claim that SD Surf may provide more misses the point and is just a rationalization.  Parents,whether in SD or LA, Murrieta, OC, are being sold the successful Surf brand and everything that comes with it.  Parent's outside of SD aren't being told they are getting Surf Lite and instead they are being sold the full meal deal but only getting the fries.  It's this kind of deception that pisses people off.  Fortunately, most of us are informed enough to realize that a Surf affiliate bears no resemblance, other than the logo on the jersey, to the original San Diego Surf. (Actually San Dieguito Surf)


They were founded as San Dieguito Surf, named for the San Dieguito River that runs by and is, therefore, the creator of the Polo Grounds. For years they were considered to be the "north county girls club".  Then their tournament got to be successful and the separate San Diego Surf Cup non-profit corporation took the SD City name when they split out the assets years ago.  Somebody should write a book.


----------



## watfly (May 31, 2019)

RocketFile said:


> Sounds like you don't know very much about the affiliate program.


Then please educate me as to why the affiliates aren't Surf Lite versions of the original.  What are the Surf affiliates getting besides a name?  What are the substantive things they do to make SD Surf successful that they are now implementing on the affiliate level?  I'm not saying that they're bad programs. They have some good teams but typically don't come close to competing on the same level as the original.   How has West Coast improved by being branded OC Surf?

I'm open to the idea that I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any tangible benefit to the clubs that have been rebranded to Surf?


----------



## Kicker4Life (May 31, 2019)

futboldad1 said:


> What's incorrect with what watfly said? On the girls side OC Surf is the only affiliate to have DA and that's because they already had ECNL when they were WC. Loved my DDs many years with SD Surf but I do think the overall brand "Surf" is cheapened nowadays to the point of being a negative. SD has all the top players  so will always do well but OC look to be worse than when they were West Coast..............


Actually, they had DA before going OC Surf!


----------



## futboldad1 (May 31, 2019)

Kicker4Life said:


> Actually, they had DA before going OC Surf!


Even worse then!!!!


----------



## espola (May 31, 2019)

watfly said:


> Then please educate me as to why the affiliates aren't Surf Lite versions of the original.  What are the Surf affiliates getting besides a name?  What are the substantive things they do to make SD Surf successful that they are now implementing on the affiliate level?  I'm not saying that they're bad programs. They have some good teams but typically don't come close to competing on the same level as the original.   How has West Coast improved by being branded OC Surf?
> 
> I'm open to the idea that I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any tangible benefit to the clubs that have been rebranded to Surf?


I seem to recall some far-away clubs that have signed on to the Surf program (or at least licensed the logo).  Colorado?  Utah?  Hawaii would at least make smoe surf-sense -- is there also a Surf Hawaii Soccer Club?


----------



## genesis (May 31, 2019)

It's amusing check out the lineup at the Norco deal this weekend...beach vs beach, slammers vs slammers, surf vs surf, pats vs pats, etc


watfly said:


> Then please educate me as to why the affiliates aren't Surf Lite versions of the original.  What are the Surf affiliates getting besides a name?  What are the substantive things they do to make SD Surf successful that they are now implementing on the affiliate level?  I'm not saying that they're bad programs. They have some good teams but typically don't come close to competing on the same level as the original.   How has West Coast improved by being branded OC Surf?
> 
> I'm open to the idea that I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any tangible benefit to the clubs that have been rebranded to Surf?


They may get cooler uniforms


----------



## genesis (May 31, 2019)

Pure and simple: $


----------



## genesis (May 31, 2019)

espola said:


> They were founded as San Dieguito Surf, named for the San Dieguito River that runs by and is, therefore, the creator of the Polo Grounds. For years they were considered to be the "north county girls club".  Then their tournament got to be successful and the separate San Diego Surf Cup non-profit corporation took the SD City name when they split out the assets years ago.  Somebody should write a book.


You are kidding? Spare no one.


----------



## myself (May 31, 2019)

espola said:


> I seem to recall some far-away clubs that have signed on to the Surf program (or at least licensed the logo).  Colorado?  Utah?  Hawaii would at least make smoe surf-sense -- is there also a Surf Hawaii Soccer Club?


http://affiliates.surfsoccer.com/


----------



## espola (May 31, 2019)

myself said:


> http://affiliates.surfsoccer.com/


My error - still no Colorado Surf.

I also missed several, such as Seattle and San Jose.

Has anyone checked out what benefits the affiliates get from this venture, other than the name?


----------



## Kicker4Life (May 31, 2019)

genesis said:


> It's amusing check out the lineup at the Norco deal this weekend...beach vs beach, slammers vs slammers, surf vs surf, pats vs pats, etc
> 
> They may get cooler uniforms


Post a link pls.


----------



## End of the Line (May 31, 2019)

watfly said:


> So what your saying is the Kool-Aid is bluer at San Diego Surf than at Los Angeles Surf?
> 
> The claim that SD Surf may provide more misses the point and is just a rationalization.  Parents,whether in SD or LA, Murrieta, OC, are being sold the successful Surf brand and everything that comes with it.  Parent's outside of SD aren't being told they are getting Surf Lite and instead they are being sold the full meal deal but only getting the fries.  It's this kind of deception that pisses people off.  Fortunately, most of us are informed enough to realize that a Surf affiliate bears no resemblance, other than the logo on the jersey, to the original San Diego Surf. (Actually San Dieguito Surf)


The Kool-Aid trope always comes up when someone lacks anything rational to say and can therefore only resort to rhetoric.  There is literally not a single person at SD Surf telling parents at LA Surf that their daughter will be on a GDA team if they play for LA Surf, that their kids will have the same college exposure that they'd get playing on SD Surf's GDA team, or that their teammates and coaches will be just as good as what you get at SD Surf.  Shoot, I don't even think SD Surf is making parents at LA Surf pay the same fees.  It is completely ridiculous to think that SD Surf will enter into a relationship with another club as an affiliate (regardless of the nature of the affiliation) and, presto, the affiliate is now exactly the same as SD Surf.  If that was your expectation, you're the one "drinking Kool-Aid".

If you think SD Surf deceived any parent about what they were getting at LA Surf, please identify the exact person at SD Surf who made the deceptive statement, and exactly what they said, to whom and when.  The reality is you don't know jack, you just see everything through some bitter conspiracy theory lens.  Plus, you're angry because you don't want to pay $67 for a hoodie that no one is even asking you to buy.


----------



## genesis (May 31, 2019)

End of the Line said:


> If you think SD Surf deceived any parent about what they were getting at LA Surf, please identify the exact person at SD Surf who made the deceptive statement, and exactly what they said, to whom and when. The reality is you don't know jack, you just see everything through some bitter conspiracy theory lens. Plus, you're angry because you don't want to pay $67 for a hoodie that no one is even asking you to buy.


Perhaps no one was deceived other than _the parents who deceived themselves_ thinking that by putting on a surf uniform it would somehow equate a scholarship. Come on people.


----------



## watfly (May 31, 2019)

genesis said:


> Perhaps no one was deceived other than _the parents who deceived themselves_ thinking that by putting on a surf uniform it would somehow equate a scholarship. Come on people.


 Well there is certainly a lot of that going on as well.


----------



## genesis (May 31, 2019)

watfly said:


> Well there is certainly a lot of that going on as well.


Always has always will, lot's of sheep out there.


----------



## espola (May 31, 2019)

End of the Line said:


> The Kool-Aid trope always comes up when someone lacks anything rational to say and can therefore only resort to rhetoric.  There is literally not a single person at SD Surf telling parents at LA Surf that their daughter will be on a GDA team if they play for LA Surf, that their kids will have the same college exposure that they'd get playing on SD Surf's GDA team, or that their teammates and coaches will be just as good as what you get at SD Surf.  Shoot, I don't even think SD Surf is making parents at LA Surf pay the same fees.  It is completely ridiculous to think that SD Surf will enter into a relationship with another club as an affiliate (regardless of the nature of the affiliation) and, presto, the affiliate is now exactly the same as SD Surf.  If that was your expectation, you're the one "drinking Kool-Aid".
> 
> If you think SD Surf deceived any parent about what they were getting at LA Surf, please identify the exact person at SD Surf who made the deceptive statement, and exactly what they said, to whom and when.  The reality is you don't know jack, you just see everything through some bitter conspiracy theory lens.  Plus, you're angry because you don't want to pay $67 for a hoodie that no one is even asking you to buy.


So what, then, was the attraction?


----------



## watfly (May 31, 2019)

End of the Line said:


> The Kool-Aid trope always comes up when someone lacks anything rational to say and can therefore only resort to rhetoric.  There is literally not a single person at SD Surf telling parents at LA Surf that their daughter will be on a GDA team if they play for LA Surf, that their kids will have the same college exposure that they'd get playing on SD Surf's GDA team, or that their teammates and coaches will be just as good as what you get at SD Surf.  Shoot, I don't even think SD Surf is making parents at LA Surf pay the same fees.  It is completely ridiculous to think that SD Surf will enter into a relationship with another club as an affiliate (regardless of the nature of the affiliation) and, presto, the affiliate is now exactly the same as SD Surf.  If that was your expectation, you're the one "drinking Kool-Aid".
> 
> If you think SD Surf deceived any parent about what they were getting at LA Surf, please identify the exact person at SD Surf who made the deceptive statement, and exactly what they said, to whom and when.  The reality is you don't know jack, you just see everything through some bitter conspiracy theory lens.  Plus, you're angry because you don't want to pay $67 for a hoodie that no one is even asking you to buy.


I'm angry about a hoody? Huh, my apologies.  I think your reading way more into this than anyone is suggesting.  First off I really have no beef with Surf, it should be proud of its success.  I'm impressed every year when it has the local news story of where its senior women players are going to college.

My question is what material, tangible benefits does being a Surf affiliate provide, particularly with well established clubs?  On its affiliates page Surf lists 6 "benefits" most of which are misleading, an exaggeration or demonstrably false.  To mention a couple...Surf claims you get free registration software which is technically true but that software is free to any club regardless of affiliation.  It claims that it provides "Great Gear at Great Prices".  Well I admit I do like the Surf uniforms but they're typically more expensive than similar quality gear at other clubs.  The biggest benefit is "Brand Recognition" but that rings hollow when the product is not the same as the original.   Interestingly, OC Surf still calls its tournament West Coast.  To me the affiliate programs appears to be more form over substance.


----------



## timbuck (May 31, 2019)

You get to become part of the mafia.  Then no other clubs will mess with you.


----------



## espola (May 31, 2019)

timbuck said:


> You get to become part of the mafia.  Then no other clubs will mess with you.


It looks from the content of this thread that other clubs will mock you.


----------



## timbuck (May 31, 2019)

From what I’ve seen- surf does seem to be the one mega club that does try to do a littl bit with their affiliates.   I think at man city cup they entered a boys 06 team that was made up of players from about 6 of their affiliates. 

And I think slammers this year is having their cda and south affiliates get involved with ecnl2.


----------

