US SOCCER

[jpeter]

And how many D1 men’s scholarships go to foreign (


I’ve heard several people suggest that we need to build more futsal courts. I call BS. There is no reason that a group of kids that want to play small sided soccer (on blacktop, on grass, on dirt, in a gym) can’t just go out and play. They can use cones or pug goals.
The problem is that not enough kids want to grab a ball and play unless it is a scheduled activity.

I was referring to elementary to middle school kids. 90% of them likely never heard of futsal and have no knowledge of the games starting out.

During free time recess and/or lunch kids go to the blacktops to play basketball, handball or whatever because that what's available to them. Having a futsal court in the mix will allow them the opportunitity to play and learn the game, PE could teach that in there rotation of sports. Grade school Basketball is popular partly because there are so many hoops and courts at school almost anybody can get involved, soccer not so much if there is room on grass or if there is even a pitch for 7v7, so not many kids are playing at lunch or whenever.

 

[MWN]

"Although scholarship limits came into effect around the same time as Title IX, in the mid-1970s, that's a coincidence. Back then, the NCAA was concerned that major football programs were hoarding players by giving them financial aid."

"But if you leave preconceptions aside and just look at the data, you will find that the real enemy of men's sports isn't Title IX. It's NCAA scholarship limits."

"Put simply, scholarship limits protect and promote revenue sports."

"The NCAA admits that, for some time now, its scholarship rules have been geared toward generating money. "For men's sports in Division I, the NCAA membership determined in 1974 to separate football and basketball financial aid from other sports," says spokesman Cameron Schuh. "This move was predicated on the ability of those sports at that time to generate revenue for the institutions as compared to the other sports the institutions fielded."

That's as much as the NCAA would explain, though, about anything related to its scholarship policies. We do know that the NCAA has fiddled with the limits over the years, occasionally reducing the overall number to cut costs in hard times. But at most schools, you still have to get to the fourth-string tight end or the third-string point guard before you find a player who's not getting a full ride in football or basketball, while soccer coaches can't even field a starting lineup of scholarship athletes."

When you read the way the OCR goes about investigating Title IX compliance in case resolutionas and how they calculate compliance, it appears that some schools could potentially be dinged for non compliance for under representing men because of the one size fits all NCAA rules. It would be interesting to look at the numbers that each college is required to provide on a yearly basis but not enough so that I will try and get that information.

http://www.espn.com/espnw/title-ix/article/7959799/the-silent-enemy-men-sports

@Keepermom2,
The ESPN article does not examine the disparity between mens and womans teams within the same sport, but simply concludes that revenue is the reason why men's soccer can't field a team. There is no questions that NCAA scholarship limits are designed to ensure competitive balance between the schools AND the fact that the money sports get the lions share of the scholarships is a clear indication that the NCAA is protecting those money sports.

However, where the ESPN article falls down is that it doesn't attempt to answer why mens soccer gets 9.9 and women's soccer gets 14. Like any issue the answers are generally multi-faceted and there always isn't just 1 answer. Does men's soccer generate less revenue than women's collegiate soccer? No. Mens collegiate soccer for a few schools is actually profitable to break even. The reason for the disparity between men's and women's soccer is because of how the NCAA has addressed Title IX demands in its scholarship limitation rules.

So, the ESPN article is a nice discussion as it relates purely revenue v. non-revenue sports, but please note that nowhere does it attempt to examine why across the board why women get more scholarships in a given sport compared to the same men's sport. It recognizes the discrepancy exists, but doesn't answer why. If its not Title IX, and it certainly isn't revenue for that sport as most collegiate sports programs are money losers, then what is it?

Bottom line, the NCAA has created rules that treats non-revenue sports differently between men and women because of Title IX.

 

[InTheValley]

For the love of god, who said anything about just popping up a field in BFE and players are going to flock to it and we are going to win a World Cup.

It is my belief that while MLS would by most be considered a successful league with a great on field product, I do not believe that we are doing enough to continue to build the game domestically when it comes to developing youth talent. Our response shouldn’t be, “well as long as we send our kids to Europe we will be fine”. We have the resources here in the US to do a better job and raise the bar.

Competition is the biggest driver for change and improvement, if you introduce a merit based system and now 100 teams are looking to develop talent for their club so that they can possibly make it to the top of the pyramid, then it becomes a “keeping up with the Jones’s type scenario,” in that more clubs will look to improve the entire system to be relevant. Clubs will look to better develop coaches, they will look harder and deeper to find talent and not just rely on what pops in their lap.

There is money out there for soccer and while there is always a risk in an investment, if you open the system to a degree the reward for that investment becomes greater.

Agree or Disagree, I don’t care. I didn’t lay out a fool proof plan and say why doesn’t US soccer do this, just an opinion, but if the system isn’t challenged to a degree then nothing will change. I just think we can do better.

Seriously, where does the money come from? If MLS teams already drop a million dollars a year on their academies, how does it become a better investment for them if there’s a 20% chance every year they’ll lose their entire investment, plus they need to drop another $100-200k annually to pay scouts to scour the rec leagues to find “potential”? That doesn’t exactly sound like a better investment to me, but what would I know about investing money?

“Keeping up with the Jones” was coined as a way of explaining that it’s a bad idea to do something that is unsustainable, by the way. It’s not exactly the sound business model that you that you think it is. Please just tell me, where is this money coming from once you drive those who are already spending it on development out of the business because you made it too risky and expensive for them? If you need a cliche, the better one is “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

 

[mahrez]

Seriously, where does the money come from? If MLS teams already drop a million dollars a year on their academies, how does it become a better investment for them if there’s a 20% chance every year they’ll lose their entire investment, plus they need to drop another $100-200k annually to pay scouts to scour the rec leagues to find “potential”? That doesn’t exactly sound like a better investment to me, but what would I know about investing money?

“Keeping up with the Jones” was coined as a way of explaining that it’s a bad idea to do something that is unsustainable, by the way. It’s not exactly the sound business model that you that you think it is. Please just tell me, where is this money coming from once you drive those who are already spending it on development out of the business because you made it too risky and expensive for them? If you need a cliche, the better one is “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”

The Galaxy are spending $4 million or more on there academy per year and have yet to see much return on that investment. Can you name any pro 1st team or current MNT players that have spendt more than a season there as youth?

There not going to get regulated due to open competition at the youth level, the ones that are those clubs that are not competive, look at the u15-18 standings and you will see the problems.

MLS soccer and there academies are money losers currently for the most part and they keep aflot by deep pocket parent companies or rich indvidual families.

Us soccer has a huge surplus of money, govt gives out vast sums on sholarships, parents spend millions on pay to play so there are ways to get funding.

It's easier to get $ out of parents then to raise funds through soccer charties, sponserships, partnerships, etc so the path of less resistance has been choosen.

Think about all the soccer programs that are lower cost: High School, Latin Leagues, AYSO, indoor, etc they have a much larger base of players and manage so there businesses plans must be working right?

One of the biggest problem of all is nobody really wants to cooperate with any other organization be it ussf, da, us club, cal south, high school, etc and there all driving there own agenda so we don't have a unified apporach to the problem and the $ is spead wide & thin. Budgets can be planned, resources found but when you're primarily looking to parents to fund youth soccer than the usa might keep missing out at higher level play at the WC or oylmpics.

 

[Keepermom2]

Not accurate. NCAA rules throw certain colleges out of compliance with Title IX because of their caps as shown in the sports vice article I provided below. In addition, you can look at the data submitted to Board of Education for each school and see for yourself. Note the reports that the colleges are required to submit do not include scholarships by sport only the total scholarships. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/ I said it early on because I am a numbers person; you can't put in global caps and meet the requirements under Title IX at every school and the article reiterates that point. NCAA may be saying that is why they are doing it but it doesn't make it so. The numbers speak for themselves.

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/d7mpqk/is-the-ncaa-undermining-title-ix

NCAA rules do not combine with Title IX- "In a bigger picture sense, perhaps this shouldn't be surprising. The Office for Civil Rights enforces Title IX, not the NCAA. The NCAA does not have Title IX requirements written into its bylaws and does not make Title IX compliance a requirement for membership, nor has it ever punished member schools who fall out of compliance. Similarly, none of the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, or Pac-12 have Title IX provisions. (The ACC told VICE Sports that it does not comment on ongoing litigation. The Big 12 declined to comment.)

In fact, the NCAA actually sued the federal government in 1976 in a failed effort to challenge Title IX. Today, that isn't an option: not legally, and certainly not from a public relations standpoint. Still, the association's history, governance, and current scholarship caps suggest that it doesn't seem to care a whole lot about Title IX—not unless it can hide behind the law in order to keep money away from athletes, male and female."

"Title IX is thrown up at times as a smokescreen to prevent candid ways of dealing with some of the longstanding problems that we've had in college sports," said Drexel sport management professor Ellen Staurowsky, a NCAA critic and college sports historian. "Consistent with the overall industry tendency, I think the rules get manipulated in service to whatever issue of the day is of greatest threat to the profitability of the entities involved."

After further reading and thought, it appears the NCAA has made an attempt to balance and meet Title IX without impacting too much the profitable sports football and basketball thus not only reducing the scholarships given to men in other sports but as the article states, still putting colleges out of compliance with Title IX in favor of men. Having said that, I would argue any college that doesn't offer football but has to stick to the NCAA limit would probably be out of compliance in favor of women thus still putting the school out of compliance with Title IX. I looked at information submitted to the Board of Education for two schools and was not shocked to see I was right on both of my assertions. One Pack 12 school looked okay until I realized they forgot to put the number of men's soccer players into their report which makes them out of compliance on the financial aid given in favor of men. I checked with my authoritative source Facebook to ensure there was an active team during the school year provided and yep there was. The other school I looked at didn't have a football program and was out of compliance in favor of women. https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

My point again is that Title IX is NOT only for women and is not the reason why men get less scholarships in soccer. The NCAA could easily make it even in soccer and take away a small bit from Football or Basketball to meet whatever crazy one size fits all goal they are trying to meet under the guise of Title IX. If you read Title IX and the case resolutions, you will see it is NOT an "Entitlement" program for women nor are there any specific requirements catering only towards women. That is NCAA that has done that. It is a rule ensuring balanced opportunities for men and women in sports based upon enrollment of each gender and interest of students at each college. One size fits all caps clearly is not congruent with what Title IX is trying to achieve. I am guessing the OCR is not immediately doing anything about this because they are soooo bogged down with sexual harassment cases, transgender cases of discrimination, as well as 504 disability cases among many other cases. They have very few people to take these cases on so if there isn't a complaint they have to address, they don't do anything proactively unless of course there are many complaints.

This has been an informative run for me and I am done. I just really dislike blanket statements like women are getting favorable treatment when that is not true when looking at college sports in totality.

 

[MWN]

Not accurate. ...
My point again is that Title IX is NOT only for women and is not the reason why men get less scholarships in soccer.

The above is not true. Let me try this one last time. In 1982 at the NCAA Convention, the scholarship limits for women were established.

"Some women’s sports had higher financial aid limits than their comparable men’s sports. This was intentional and mainly due to the financial impact and ability for member institutions to meet Title IX proportionality requirements (NCAA Convention Proceedings, 1982)." (See, page 26, TITLE IX COMPLIANCE VS. NCAA SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS - https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:c5a88a69-2a45-4102-9693-a4a17180e559)

Now, the author of this thesis (a female) concluded after reading the various NCAA minutes and proceedings what I have been trying to explain, the NCAA adopted disproportionate scholarship limits in order for its member institutions to meet Title IX requirements.

The argument that Tittle IX is not the cause of the NCAA's disproportionate scholarship limits is not based on fact and contrary to the NCAA's minutes. Moreover, it makes absolutely no logical sense that the NCAA would create disproportionate scholarship limits if there was not some force requiring member schools to offset scholarships granted for other mens programs (namely, football).

I note (as does the author) of the above link that the NCAA could handle this differently and simply make the scholarship limits equal, thereby giving schools the choice to either drop men's soccer entirely (as do many schools), especially those with football programs or schools could self regulate the number of scholarships granted by impacting whatever programs they see fit. The problem with the later is competitive imbalances may occur, which is fine by me as long as we raise the caps to allow a program to at least scholarship 2 year worth of athletes. (Thus, soccer on boys and girls should get 22-24).

One final note, just because a limit exists does not mean a school has to reach it. Its potential competitiveness will suffer, but Schools can choose which programs to invest in and which they won't. Setting a limit of 22 simply means a school cannot exceed that, its still free to only hand out 7 in order to meet Title IX requirements if another men's program is using most of the men's scholarships.

 

[Keepermom2]

The above is not true. Let me try this one last time. In 1982 at the NCAA Convention, the scholarship limits for women were established.

"Some women’s sports had higher financial aid limits than their comparable men’s sports. This was intentional and mainly due to the financial impact and ability for member institutions to meet Title IX proportionality requirements (NCAA Convention Proceedings, 1982)." (See, page 26, TITLE IX COMPLIANCE VS. NCAA SCHOLARSHIP LIMITS - https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/indexablecontent/uuid:c5a88a69-2a45-4102-9693-a4a17180e559)

Now, the author of this thesis (a female) concluded after reading the various NCAA minutes and proceedings what I have been trying to explain, the NCAA adopted disproportionate scholarship limits in order for its member institutions to meet Title IX requirements.

The argument that Tittle IX is not the cause of the NCAA's disproportionate scholarship limits is not based on fact and contrary to the NCAA's minutes. Moreover, it makes absolutely no logical sense that the NCAA would create disproportionate scholarship limits if there was not some force requiring member schools to offset scholarships granted for other mens programs (namely, football).

I note (as does the author) of the above link that the NCAA could handle this differently and simply make the scholarship limits equal, thereby giving schools the choice to either drop men's soccer entirely (as do many schools), especially those with football programs or schools could self regulate the number of scholarships granted by impacting whatever programs they see fit. The problem with the later is competitive imbalances may occur, which is fine by me as long as we raise the caps to allow a program to at least scholarship 2 year worth of athletes. (Thus, soccer on boys and girls should get 22-24).

One final note, just because a limit exists does not mean a school has to reach it. Its potential competitiveness will suffer, but Schools can choose which programs to invest in and which they won't. Setting a limit of 22 simply means a school cannot exceed that, its still free to only hand out 7 in order to meet Title IX requirements if another men's program is using most of the men's scholarships.

Just because NCAA says they are doing it in response to Title IX does not make it so nor does the resulting lack of compliance with Title IX from so many colleges indicate that. I doubt there is anything in their minutes that showed support for how the caps they instituted provided gender equalization across all colleges in accordance with Title IX or said more than we have to do this in accordance with Title IX. Either they are completely ignorant to the law or they have their own agenda and I believe the answer is both. I believe the caps that NCAA put in place has to do with their own agenda which was to make sure the profitable sport of football was protected. At the moment that Title IX was put in place it would have been logical (without consideration of profit issues) to take from football to increase other women's sports since there isn't an equivalent female sport and the numbers required for football were so large but what NCAA put in place decreased scholarships to all of men's sports even though there was an equivalent female team and as such protected football.

What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX? Anyone can say they are enacting laws in accordance with a given law but if it has no resemblance of the law, than they didn't enact it as a result of that law.

 

[Grace T.]

During free time recess and/or lunch kids go to the blacktops to play basketball, handball or whatever because that what's available to them. Having a futsal court in the mix will allow them the opportunitity to play and learn the game, PE could teach that in there rotation of sports. Grade school Basketball is popular partly because there are so many hoops and courts at school almost anybody can get involved, soccer not so much if there is room on grass or if there is even a pitch for 7v7, so not many kids are playing at lunch or whenever.

Don’t disagree. Most kids don’t know futsal. But side note outside the burbs many cal schools have eliminated pe since nclb and common core creates incentives mostly for money to be pumped into core subjects and infrastructure, along with a rising pension problem. Sports arts and music were first to be cut.

Think about all the soccer programs that are lower cost: High School, Latin Leagues, AYSO, indoor, etc they have a much larger base of players and manage so there businesses plans must be working right?

One of the biggest problem of all is nobody really wants to cooperate with any other organization be it ussf, da, us club, cal south, high school, etc and there all driving there own agenda so we don't have a unified apporach to the problem and the $ is spead wide & thin. Budgets can be planned, resources found but when you're primarily looking to parents to fund youth soccer than the usa might keep missing out at higher level play at the WC or oylmpics.

All 3 programs have suffered due to club soccer. High school from da players having restrictions on play and a lack of college scouting. Ayso from top talent dropping out for club and by u14 being pretty much a waste land. Ayso is now canabalizing it’s own core program through extras and United, some teams of which are surprisingly competitive due to the large pool they select from. The best Latin league players are poached by pay to play clubs offering scholarships. Travel and transport are bigger problems for these players than club fees.

 

[timbuck]

Don’t disagree. Most kids don’t know futsal. But side note outside the burbs many cal schools have eliminated pe since nclb and common core creates incentives mostly for money to be pumped into core subjects and infrastructure, along with a rising pension problem. Sports arts and music were first to be cut.


All 3 programs have suffered due to club soccer. High school from da players having restrictions on play and a lack of college scouting. Ayso from top talent dropping out for club and by u14 being pretty much a waste land. Ayso is now canabalizing it’s own core program through extras and United, some teams of which are surprisingly competitive due to the large pool they select from. The best Latin league players are poached by pay to play clubs offering scholarships. Travel and transport are bigger problems for these players than club fees.

I’m not sure PE teachers are equipped for much. Certainly not to give guidance on how to play futsal.
In PE last year, my 6th header had to demonstrate that she could juggle. Not with a soccer ball. But like a circus clown. Had to get several rotations for an “A” that week.

 

[MWN]

Just because NCAA says they are doing it in response to Title IX does not make it so nor does the resulting lack of compliance with Title IX from so many colleges indicate that. I doubt there is anything in their minutes that showed support for how the caps they instituted provided gender equalization across all colleges in accordance with Title IX or said more than we have to do this in accordance with Title IX. Either they are completely ignorant to the law or they have their own agenda and I believe the answer is both. I believe the caps that NCAA put in place has to do with their own agenda which was to make sure the profitable sport of football was protected. At the moment that Title IX was put in place it would have been logical (without consideration of profit issues) to take from football to increase other women's sports since there isn't an equivalent female sport and the numbers required for football were so large but what NCAA put in place decreased scholarships to all of men's sports even though there was an equivalent female team and as such protected football.

What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX? Anyone can say they are enacting laws in accordance with a given law but if it has no resemblance of the law, than they didn't enact it as a result of that law.

Just take a step back. We have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Kantor in her review of the NCAA Convention proceedings from 1982. It also makes perfect logical sense. Consider the following:

1976 Title IX becomes law.
1976 NCAA and its members are figuring out how to handle this.
1981-1982 The NCAA begins tracking gender participation rates and is the first year of its detailed study.
1982 The convention gets the report and sees that it has a problem with participation rates almost double for men v. women. It recognizes woman sports for the first time will be subject to the "scholarship limits" just like the men. But how do we solve the gender imbalance? We can't allocate the same number as the men, because that won't offset the football problem, unless we take away sports from men and add additional sports for women. We want to ensure some limits to protect the money sports (football and basketball). The only thing we can do to address the Title IX mandate is give more scholarships for certain sports to woman to assist school in compliance with Title IX.

Its logical and how it happened, as reported by Ms. Kantor who (unlike you and I) actually reviewed the minutes. I don't doubt it because it makes perfect sense. Moreover, it was a reasonable solution by the NCAA at the time given the fact Title IX posed serious problems for NCAA institutions and still does.

With regard to your question "What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX?" What they did is treat certain men's sports programs in a disparate manner by providing women's programs with more scholarships to allow schools to cure the imbalance. Thus, men stayed at 9.9 and rather than giving woman 9.9, which would have not helped the football schools in meeting Title IX compliance so they gave women 14 in soccer and so on (basketball, women get 15 (men 13); X-Country/Track, men 12.6 and women 18, etc.)

Why are you fighting this so hard? Nothing I have written is wrong or untrue. The NCAA adopted disparate scholarship limits between men and women to assist its members in complying with Title IX. It was the solution the NCAA chose in 1982 to their member's Title IX compliance problems. Whether schools today are in or out of compliance with Title IX is inconsequential to the decision in 1982 to set the scholarship limits higher for women because of the relatively new Title IX mandates.

 

[Keepermom2]

Just take a step back. We have no reason to disbelieve Ms. Kantor in her review of the NCAA Convention proceedings from 1982. It also makes perfect logical sense. Consider the following:

1976 Title IX becomes law.
1976 NCAA and its members are figuring out how to handle this.
1981-1982 The NCAA begins tracking gender participation rates and is the first year of its detailed study.
1982 The convention gets the report and sees that it has a problem with participation rates almost double for men v. women. It recognizes woman sports for the first time will be subject to the "scholarship limits" just like the men. But how do we solve the gender imbalance? We can't allocate the same number as the men, because that won't offset the football problem, unless we take away sports from men and add additional sports for women. We want to ensure some limits to protect the money sports (football and basketball). The only thing we can do to address the Title IX mandate is give more scholarships for certain sports to woman to assist school in compliance with Title IX.

Its logical and how it happened, as reported by Ms. Kantor who (unlike you and I) actually reviewed the minutes. I don't doubt it because it makes perfect sense. Moreover, it was a reasonable solution by the NCAA at the time given the fact Title IX posed serious problems for NCAA institutions and still does.

With regard to your question "What did they do that shows they were enacting rules that were in accordance with Title IX?" What they did is treat certain men's sports programs in a disparate manner by providing women's programs with more scholarships to allow schools to cure the imbalance. Thus, men stayed at 9.9 and rather than giving woman 9.9, which would have not helped the football schools in meeting Title IX compliance so they gave women 14 in soccer and so on (basketball, women get 15 (men 13); X-Country/Track, men 12.6 and women 18, etc.)

Why are you fighting this so hard? Nothing I have written is wrong or untrue. The NCAA adopted disparate scholarship limits between men and women to assist its members in complying with Title IX. It was the solution the NCAA chose in 1982 to their member's Title IX compliance problems. Whether schools today are in or out of compliance with Title IX is inconsequential to the decision in 1982 to set the scholarship limits higher for women because of the relatively new Title IX mandates.

How does the NCAA scholarship limits comply with Title IX? Show me the link between how those limits are applied and the law?

 

[younothat]

Maybe we should just start over....

Since most people don't show up and play pickup anymore we can have organized training and games ever Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday at your local school, pitch, park, wherehouse or whatever.

Underground music scene festival style, show up in your costume (uniform of choice) but only blacks and whites please so we can figure who's on what team without spending money on those fancy pinnies.

$5 per hour per player, unisex, 3 age groups playing together, having fun, teams are picked by rock, paper, and scissors

You can call your league/team what every you want; Super Mario Bros, BLINK-1ETO'O, DIRTY SANCHEZ (adults only sorry), ABSOLUTELY FABREGAS, KLOPPS AND ROBBERS

Games go until the ice cream truck shows up, your don't have to buy from the truck but if you don't you might not have a referee since there pulling double duty

Parking is free unless you want to sponsor the kids who can't pay the $5 per hour.

Standing are keep so top teams advance to the Super KFC Wimbledon cup where you eat chicken and wonder what this has to do with soccer.

Title 99 says everybody can play as long as you can show a receipt that your bought "hot" air from the the balloon guy at the 99 cent store.

 

[coachsamy]

CSL was great until the great powers were being relegated by the smaller guy and those great powers went into form what we know as SCDSL...

 

[Mystery Train]

This thread ^^^^^

 

[coachsamy]

A little glimpse of what could happen if MLS goes into P/R...

- Current MLS owners/execs will suffer. Look at Columbus Crew ownership pulling a Spanos to the city of Columbus in favor of quick money down in Austin.

- Players contracts will belong to the actual club and not the league, so player sales are in the books of the individual clubs.

- LAFC, LAG and NYCFC would become the perennial top dog$ in the league. (i.e. America, Chivas Liga MX, Real Madrid, Barcelona La Liga, Juve, AC Milan, InterMilan, Serie 1, etc.)

- A grassroots like Chula Vista FC would become something like a 3rd - 2nd division perennial player builder maintaining budget of player sales.

- A grassroots like Albion Pros could become something like a Leicester City, well managed nothing flashy and surprise in first division every now and then, or just once in their existence.

- Owners would learn how to really manage their money and know that the day they choose to get greedy (Spanos) their whole operations will go bankrupt. Yes I know Spanos is not going bankrupt but in a P/R system that fool would be another homeless down in East Village...

- Its cheaper to develop than to buy in the vast majority of the clubs. Look at Liverpool, Spurs, PSV, Young Boys, etc. These clubs flip players quicker than a burger from MCD's, so smaller clubs can make their living by flipping players after a good run and then invest on cheaper ones. Let LA and NY deep pockets overpay for the sexy names, everyone else builds on quality.

I know that this would cause mad chaos and break the status quo so why bother...

 

[younothat]

CSL was great until the great powers were being relegated by the smaller guy and those great powers went into form what we know as SCDSL...

I like nostalgia but what clubs are referring to?

MLS club never where in CSL that I can recall and Premier didn't start until like U16 when my boy started

Arsenel, Albion, West Coast, Real Socal, Pats, Strikers played CSL at some point I remember

Now there the same Albion, Boca Jrs, Fullerton, Oxnard, DMS teams plus news ones like TFA, Golden State, Santa Barbara, AC Brea, Valley United and Premier starts at what U14 now.

On the boys side yeah DA expansion has seemed to cause more dilution but has SCDSL really changed that landscape for boys CSL Premier much ? DA clubs seem to be putting in there calendar year split teams back in CSL just as much as SCDSL.

On the girls side yes CSL was raided for ECNL, DA, SCDSL, etc.

 

[younothat]

Ok back on topic

Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer? It's all about the Benjamins
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/isnt-u-s-better-soccer-benjamins-153935158.html

"America has either priced out or spooked out many talented children from diverse backgrounds. That’s according to an array of coaches, top players and soccer parents Yahoo Sports spoke with for this story.

“People of different incomes and diversity groups are being left out,” says Michael Fitzgerald, who runs the Saints Soccer Academy only a few miles from Nike headquarters in Oregon. “A lot of families are priced out.”

Fitzgerald has made a concerted effort to make his club affordable to everyone, whether through volunteer coaches or scholarships for players, but he sees obstacles ranging from immigrant groups who “don’t want to be on record” to language barriers to simple perception.

“Some of the Hispanic community here, they have access but they don’t pursue it,” Fitzgerald says. “Because of the perception that it’s a rich man’s sport. They don’t chase it. They see all the rich kids playing soccer. They say that’s not for us. There’s no pathway.”

A study on the subject that was referenced in Time last year cited the “maximum” cost to a soccer family as $5,500 per child, but it was not hard to find families with promising kids whose costs blew way past that. One soccer mom in North Carolina, who asked to remain anonymous so she could speak openly about family finances, said she spends $5,200 per year on club fees alone for her 14-year-old boy. That doesn’t include costs for uniform, health care and summer training. “You can keep going and going and going,” she said.

The women’s national team is far more successful than the men, winning the World Cup in 2015 and likely favored again next year, but that doesn’t mean the same issues don’t arise on that side.

“I don’t think it’s any secret or any surprise to anybody that soccer in America has recently been a very affluent, suburban sport,” said Crystal Dunn, who has played for the national team and now stars for the NWSL’s North Carolina Courage. “The next level of growth is to include everybody in urban and rural populations and make sure everyone has access to the game, both boys and girls.”

Dunn is African-American, but she grew up in a mostly white neighborhood.

“For me, everyone I saw was white,” she said. “That’s just the reality of it. My parents made good money and worked really hard and it’s not always that way for people, I think, of my complexion. I think I was really fortunate.”

Her former teammate, goalkeeper Hope Solo, made headlines recently by calling soccer in America a “rich white kid’s sport.” She said if she had come up in this era, as a working-class child from Washington state, she would have been looked over or priced out.

U.S. national team star Alex Morgan had not heard Solo’s comments, but she didn’t disagree.

“I do feel like there is a problem in the U.S. with younger kids having to pay to play,” Morgan said. “I wish it was more available to all kids.”

There are many efforts underway to reach across barriers. Operation Pitch Invasion is dedicated to building soccer fields in non-traditional places “so that kids of all ages have high-quality and safe playing surfaces to enjoy the beautiful game.” America Scoresoffers a unique combination of “soccer, poetry and service-learning” to give inner-city youth better after-school options.

But it’s not just about introducing and developing the game at the grass-roots level. It’s also about helping talented kids compete in a world that’s top-heavy in top-earning families. “I don’t know if you have to be traveling all the way to California for good matches when you’re 14 years old,” says U.S. national team member Heather O’Reilly, who contributes to America Scores.

The U.S. is a capitalistic society, proudly, and the goal for many is to be profitable as well as to be helpful. So as the interest in soccer increases, so will the interest in the business of soccer. That may make the effort to diversify even tougher, when it seems like it should be the opposite.

This might be the No. 1 challenge for new U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro. He was born in Bombay and moved to Miami as a teen, but he’s considered an insider in the soccer world. He attended Harvard Business School and he was a partner at Goldman Sachs. As part of his platform, he wrote about the need to “invest new resources to make soccer more affordable for youth, especially in our cities and underserved communities.”

It’s only been a few months, but Fitzgerald hasn’t seen much of a change yet.

“I wish there was a bigger braintrust focusing on this,” he said. “I haven’t heard a single word about it since our new president took office. There are a ton of kids who are getting overlooked. And this is Portland; I can only imagine what L.A. is like.”

Find those kids in those cities more frequently, and the U.S. might still be playing at this stage in the 2022 World Cup. After all, the populations of L.A. and Portland add up to roughly the size of Croatia.

 

[InTheValley]

A little glimpse of what could happen if MLS goes into P/R...

- Current MLS owners/execs will suffer. Look at Columbus Crew ownership pulling a Spanos to the city of Columbus in favor of quick money down in Austin.

- Players contracts will belong to the actual club and not the league, so player sales are in the books of the individual clubs.

- LAFC, LAG and NYCFC would become the perennial top dog$ in the league. (i.e. America, Chivas Liga MX, Real Madrid, Barcelona La Liga, Juve, AC Milan, InterMilan, Serie 1, etc.)

- A grassroots like Chula Vista FC would become something like a 3rd - 2nd division perennial player builder maintaining budget of player sales.

- A grassroots like Albion Pros could become something like a Leicester City, well managed nothing flashy and surprise in first division every now and then, or just once in their existence.

- Owners would learn how to really manage their money and know that the day they choose to get greedy (Spanos) their whole operations will go bankrupt. Yes I know Spanos is not going bankrupt but in a P/R system that fool would be another homeless down in East Village...

- Its cheaper to develop than to buy in the vast majority of the clubs. Look at Liverpool, Spurs, PSV, Young Boys, etc. These clubs flip players quicker than a burger from MCD's, so smaller clubs can make their living by flipping players after a good run and then invest on cheaper ones. Let LA and NY deep pockets overpay for the sexy names, everyone else builds on quality.

I know that this would cause mad chaos and break the status quo so why bother...

I’m not sure where Albion Pros is going to find $66 million for annual payroll or money to build it’s own 35,000 person stadium like Leicester.

I think MLS owners are doing a decent job managing their money, including protecting their investment by not giving free loaders the opportunity to take their share of the $90 million in tv deals they worked hard and took years to secure. Regardless, why does anyone think that replacing the last place SJ Quakes and it’s really cool stadium (with the largest outdoor bar in North America I might add), 20k per game attendance and share of tv viewership with Albion Pros improves soccer in the US. Their mistake for stupidly investing money in soccer, including its youth academy, I guess. No one will ever make that mistake again. Much smarter to create a system that will only generate enough revenue to pay players beer money.

If P/R is the best way for a sports league to excel, why is EPL revenue is dwarfed by the NFL, MLB, and NBA? Actually, that gives me a brilliant idea, as long as we’re proposing unrealistic theories about making soccer great here. First, find 32 people willing to invest roughly $3 billion each. Second, buy every team in the NFL. Third, change sports. You don’t even need to change the league name, and the teams already have the infrastructure, both of which provide a massive cost savings that you could never realize any other way. Plus, you’ve killed off the main competition for sports dollars and opened up a new pipeline for youth players as kids flee a dead end sport with no future.

 

[mahrez]

I’m not sure where Albion Pros is going to find $66 million for annual payroll or money to build it’s own 35,000 person stadium like Leicester.

I think MLS owners are doing a decent job managing their money, including protecting their investment by not giving free loaders the opportunity to take their share of the $90 million in tv deals they worked hard and took years to secure. Regardless, why does anyone think that replacing the last place SJ Quakes and it’s really cool stadium (with the largest outdoor bar in North America I might add), 20k per game attendance and share of tv viewership with Albion Pros improves soccer in the US. Their mistake for stupidly investing money in soccer, including its youth academy, I guess. No one will ever make that mistake again. Much smarter to create a system that will only generate enough revenue to pay players beer money.

If P/R is the best way for a sports league to excel, why is EPL revenue is dwarfed by the NFL, MLB, and NBA? Actually, that gives me a brilliant idea, as long as we’re proposing unrealistic theories about making soccer great here. First, find 32 people willing to invest roughly $3 billion each. Second, buy every team in the NFL. Third, change sports. You don’t even need to change the league name, and the teams already have the infrastructure, both of which provide a massive cost savings that you could never realize any other way. Plus, you’ve killed off the main competition for sports dollars and opened up a new pipeline for youth players as kids flee a dead end sport with no future.

Avaya stadium is nice, if the quakes played in a P/R league they would either have to be more competitive or deal with the economics of regulation like the rest of the soccer world does.

The owner's had deep enough pockets to buy the old airport land from the city and bulid that stadium /wo public funds, his last place team is losing $ hand over fist & his main sponsor Avaya is bankrupt so if another team say newly-promoted Sacramento Republic took over what would be the difference? capitalism at work.

 

[Grace T.]

Ok back on topic


“Some of the Hispanic community here, they have access but they don’t pursue it,” Fitzgerald says. “Because of the perception that it’s a rich man’s sport. They don’t chase it. They see all the rich kids playing soccer. They say that’s not for us. There’s no pathway.”

That's bunk. Having spoken to many such families (in Spanish no less.....my kid did tryouts on a minority-majority team, we're church mates with one family, we've chatted with families in an Oxnard latino league, know some coaches who do cut-rate club fees for this community, have chatted with Hispanic club team families and talked to families for some of the big clubs at LA Galaxy games), that's not the reason. It's actually a little insulting (implies we Hispanics are too dumb or scared to pass up an opportunity because it's a rich man's sport). If the kid is talented, the opportunities are there. The problems are: 1) info access (many families are poor, stressed and find it difficult to navigate the club system....hell I couldn't make sense of the alphabet soup when I first jumped in and started learning from you all....one family we talked to on a family picnic didn't even know about club soccer), 2) the families are so stressed with either work schedules, double jobs, and unreliable vehicles, that getting to practice (let alone long distance games) are difficult (the minority-majority club my son tried out with wound up having to cancel many practices at the last minute due to car breakdowns/not enough kids getting rides so unable to show up) and 3) at the higher levels, tournament and college showcase travel costs. At one club which they are able to make it work, for example, a lot of the players were church mates at the pastor wound up doing a lot of the driving to practice.

 

[Grace T.]

If P/R is the best way for a sports league to excel, why is EPL revenue is dwarfed by the NFL, MLB, and NBA? Actually, that gives me a brilliant idea, as long as we’re proposing unrealistic theories about making soccer great here. First, find 32 people willing to invest roughly $3 billion each. Second, buy every team in the NFL. Third, change sports. You don’t even need to change the league name, and the teams already have the infrastructure, both of which provide a massive cost savings that you could never realize any other way. Plus, you’ve killed off the main competition for sports dollars and opened up a new pipeline for youth players as kids flee a dead end sport with no future.

It's not just P/R. It's the salary cap too. The NBA has been dominated in the past by a few teams (Lakers/Celtics, Bulls...maybe the Lakers/Warriors going forward). Reason they can do it is you only really need a marquee player and 2-3 supporters to build a dominant first string squad with only 5 players on the field on the time. The MLS salary caps are very severe for supporting players...you are limited to 3 designated players and get some targeted allocation money that has to fall under the thresholds for the 3 DPS. You cannot build a dominant squad and recruit European level talent from around the world with just 3 DPs. For those not in DP or TAP money, the salary is just too low to tempt a US-born player away from the security of a college diploma (but it IS enough to tempt someone from T&T or Panama or Costa Rica, which is why those countries have become much more competitive in recent years).

The rest of the world does not have salary caps as severe as rigid as we do for the MLS. The result is that in La Liga, for example, 2 teams are dominant year in and year out. Same with Italy and Germany. The Premiere league is it's own special beast but is also in the middle of a shakeout right now, as is English soccer (though the Premiere League by any standard is a much more global league since it's nationality caps aren't as rigid).

Fixing P/R alone, however much of a pipe dream, wouldn't be enough. You'd have to remove the salary caps so you could build some franchise teams here willing to bring top talent to the US and offering US grown talent and incentive to turn pro.