Yglesias Article on Travel Sports

[Grace T.]

Matt Yglesias, a well known political commentator, has a blog post on travel sports that's causing a bit of a stir. I think he correctly identifies the dynamic that there's a collective action problem here. In order to even play varsity these days, in certain sports rec ball isn't good enough and you have to specialize. More people specialize, and everyone else has to keep up with the Joneses (or drop out). His solution, however, just amounts to "resist the siren call" and play rec. Not much of a solution. For my own part, I've said one of the big problems is tying in college admissions (let alone scholarships) to sports....until you take care of that you aren't fixing the system.

High-pressure youth sports is bad for America

Everyone needs to act more normal

www.slowboring.com

 

[focomoso]

Interesting article. I agree with most of what he's saying, especially about the lack of community in club sports, but I don't see any reasonable solutions put forward. I joked about a parent's union, but I don't see how anything like that could be instituted. The few times I've seen anything close have been when a significant portion of parents on an already-established club team get together to initiate some action at the club (usually it's getting rid of the current coach for whatever reason). Beyond that, what can people do? I guess one option is for parents of not-top-level kids to simply opt out of club. I'm sure there are exceptions but in the younger years, if you kid is on the D team they probably aren't going to be playing varsity soccer in high school (much less college or beyond). The big clubs are happy to take your $$, but I don't think it's healthy for a kid who isn't great at soccer to be spending that much time playing soccer. If they love it, there's always AYSO or rec, which will be more fun anyway because they'll be better relative to their peers.

No matter how many times coachers of kids on the A or B teams remind parents of the odds, they all think they have a shot at "the big time" and it's this dream that keeps parents paying and traveling.

Soccer has a different issue than most of the other team sports, though, which is that it much harder to stand out if the rest of your team isn't strong. Other than goalie (where some kids choose weaker teams so they can show off their skills), the better the team, the more you can show off your skills. In Basketball and Football, a star will shine no matter what and Baseball is essentially an individual sport, but in soccer, a star striker can't do anything if they don't get the ball. A star midfielder can't show off their passing skills if their teammates don't know how to move or receive a pass. For defenders, the better they are relative to their teammates, the worse they can look because it's always "their man" who scores even though they're having to cover all the players...

 

[Grace T.]

Interesting article. I agree with most of what he's saying, especially about the lack of community in club sports, but I don't see any reasonable solutions put forward. I joked about a parent's union, but I don't see how anything like that could be instituted. The few times I've seen anything close have been when a significant portion of parents on an already-established club team get together to initiate some action at the club (usually it's getting rid of the current coach for whatever reason). Beyond that, what can people do? I guess one option is for parents of not-top-level kids to simply opt out of club. I'm sure there are exceptions but in the younger years, if you kid is on the D team they probably aren't going to be playing varsity soccer in high school (much less college or beyond). The big clubs are happy to take your $$, but I don't think it's healthy for a kid who isn't great at soccer to be spending that much time playing soccer. If they love it, there's always AYSO or rec, which will be more fun anyway because they'll be better relative to their peers.

No matter how many times coachers of kids on the A or B teams remind parents of the odds, they all think they have a shot at "the big time" and it's this dream that keeps parents paying and traveling.

Soccer has a different issue than most of the other team sports, though, which is that it much harder to stand out if the rest of your team isn't strong. Other than goalie (where some kids choose weaker teams so they can show off their skills), the better the team, the more you can show off your skills. In Basketball and Football, a star will shine no matter what and Baseball is essentially an individual sport, but in soccer, a star striker can't do anything if they don't get the ball. A star midfielder can't show off their passing skills if their teammates don't know how to move or receive a pass. For defenders, the better they are relative to their teammates, the worse they can look because it's always "their man" who scores even though they're having to cover all the players...

Plenty of c and d players can play high school. Maybe not at cathedral. But it is possible. But I think it’s also probably why the non letter league players begin to drop out at high school.

Matt also touches upon though why that doesn’t work. Because by age 10-12 programs like ayso become gutted. It’s made clear to those kids they aren’t any good, which they take to think they have no merit. So they drop out and stop playing esp once their friends and classmates move on. That’s less quality coaches and refs available since everyone that knows about the sport has moved on. Rinse and repeat.

The issue isn’t with the d players saying “don’t do it”. The issue is really with the non-academy a- players…they’d be the ones who’d have to say no but they have the most to lose since they are in the college game.

 

[Carlsbad7]

A players union could 100% work at the college level. What allows it to function is a limited supply (high level player) and huge demand (colleges that want to win).

A youth players union could happen but it would only make sense if applied to the top youth clubs.

If NWSL Next ever happens all the participating clubs would be prime targets for a youth players union allowing smoothness transition into pro or college players unions.

 

[Grace T.]

A players union could 100% work at the college level. What allows it to function is a limited supply (high level player) and huge demand (colleges that want to win).

A youth players union could happen but it would only make sense if applied to the top youth clubs.

If NWSL Next ever happens all the participating clubs would be prime targets for a youth players union allowing smoothness transition into pro or college players unions.

I think mls next belies this. The issue isn’t the academy players who are on pro track. The issue is with the non academy players who have little leverage since everyone wants their slot

 

[Carlsbad7]

I think mls next belies this. The issue isn’t the academy players who are on pro track. The issue is with the non academy players who have little leverage since everyone wants their slot

If a College Players Union comes together which I believe will eventually happen. It's highly likely a youth Non MLSN or NWSLN track ie College only Youth Players Union will also happen.

There's just too much potential $$$ on the table if colleges start paying players + likeness and persona.

 

[focomoso]

I think a youth player's union is going to be very hard. In college, there's the NCAA, a single governing body that covers almost every college player so you have a single entity to negotiate with, but in youth there are too many branches in the system. Also, there's the fact that college players claim (rightfully) that they're making money for the institution (even if they're also paying for school) and so are employees, but in youth soccer, the youths are paying for the privilege all the way through. I'm not sure how that would even work. What leverage do the youths have?

As someone who's a member of a notoriously lopsided union, most of the change comes from the top (the top earners, most famous members, etc.) because they have the most incentive to put in the resources it takes to make change. I'm not sure who that is at the youth soccer level.

 

[watfly]

This is an over simplification, but the youth soccer problems come down to one word (or concept), "pathway". Clubs push it and parents are suckers for claims of it. It puts the focus on the future, and not the present. It establishes the wrong priorities, creates unrealistic expectations and promotes FOMO. For being a bullshit word it carries a lot of power.

The crazy part is Club soccer is 90% rec soccer. But if you tell another parent your kid plays soccer and they then roll their eyes when you tell them they play AYSO. The other parent then brags, "Oh, well my son plays for Surf". Nevermind the fact that the kids plays on Timbuktu Surf on the pre EA2 team.

 

[Mystery Train]

This is an over simplification, but the youth soccer problems come down to one word (or concept), "pathway". Clubs push it and parents are suckers for claims of it. It puts the focus on the future, and not the present. It establishes the wrong priorities, creates unrealistic expectations and promotes FOMO. For being a bullshit word it carries a lot of power.

The crazy part is Club soccer is 90% rec soccer. But if you tell another parent your kid plays soccer and they then roll their eyes when you tell them they play AYSO. The other parent then brags, "Oh, well my son plays for Surf". Nevermind the fact that the kids plays on Timbuktu Surf on the pre EA2 team.

Amen on the "pathway" narrative.

I have always wished for some sort of visual demonstration showing new parents the likelihood of their child being a collegiate or professional athlete which could drive home the craziness of building your family's life around this pursuit during these preciously brief childhood years. The over-emphasis on there being a "pathway" to this obscure (in some cases, unhealthy) destination is a sickness. And it is highly contagious among a population obsessed with status and bragging rights.

 

[Jamisfoes]

Two comments about the article,
1. People having less kids make schlepping possible.
2. “A kid at the 70th percentile of ability and the 90th percentile of household income is much more likely to be on an elite team than a kid at the 90th percentile of ability and the 20th percentile of income.” Not sure if this is true. Clubs do give out scholarships to kids with 90th percentile ability. It’s more like poor kids with 70th percentile ability don’t get to play. But if you are poor and not particularly good at soccer, maybe hitting the books is the better option afterall.

 

[Grace T.]

Two comments about the article,
1. People having less kids make schlepping possible.
2. “A kid at the 70th percentile of ability and the 90th percentile of household income is much more likely to be on an elite team than a kid at the 90th percentile of ability and the 20th percentile of income.” Not sure if this is true. Clubs do give out scholarships to kids with 90th percentile ability. It’s more like poor kids with 70th percentile ability don’t get to play. But if you are poor and not particularly good at soccer, maybe hitting the books is the better option afterall.

It's more like the 95th percentage, that play in an impact position down the spine, and that are spotted early (so they can jump into club and develop their talents). Plenty of kids languishing in Latino league which had nascent talent that could have been developed. Travel also means the ability to travel which means a parent available to schlep to practice and then to other cities/states for games. My kid's second team (and the team he stayed on by far the longest) was a mixed race/income team....coach was a fantastic guy....would go pick up the kids before practice which was possible because it was local....one of the rare great coaches that actually cared about development but could balance it with the need to win....it was coast, however, so every year the team lost it's best players, and every year it had to start over missing out on promotion, rinse and repeat.

 

[Larzby]

I think a youth player's union is going to be very hard. In college, there's the NCAA, a single governing body that covers almost every college player so you have a single entity to negotiate with, but in youth there are too many branches in the system. Also, there's the fact that college players claim (rightfully) that they're making money for the institution (even if they're also paying for school) and so are employees, but in youth soccer, the youths are paying for the privilege all the way through. I'm not sure how that would even work. What leverage do the youths have?

As someone who's a member of a notoriously lopsided union, most of the change comes from the top (the top earners, most famous members, etc.) because they have the most incentive to put in the resources it takes to make change. I'm not sure who that is at the youth soccer level.

A players/family union in US youth soccer would have to start with the parents of one or two or more of the top 10 teams deciding they want to do it for the benefit of everyone who comes after them. What are the odds of that? Most everyone is in it for their kid alone.

 

[Jamisfoes]

Amen on the "pathway" narrative.

I have always wished for some sort of visual demonstration showing new parents the likelihood of their child being a collegiate or professional athlete which could drive home the craziness of building your family's life around this pursuit during these preciously brief childhood years. The over-emphasis on there being a "pathway" to this obscure (in some cases, unhealthy) destination is a sickness. And it is highly contagious among a population obsessed with status and bragging rights.

If you replace “status” with “respect” and “bragging rights” with “winners”, the soccer obsession all of sudden sounds noble.

It's more like the 95th percentage, that play in an impact position down the spine, and that are spotted early (so they can jump into club and develop their talents). Plenty of kids languishing in Latino league which had nascent talent that could have been developed. Travel also means the ability to travel which means a parent available to schlep to practice and then to other cities/states for games. My kid's second team (and the team he stayed on by far the longest) was a mixed race/income team....coach was a fantastic guy....would go pick up the kids before practice which was possible because it was local....one of the rare great coaches that actually cared about development but could balance it with the need to win....it was coast, however, so every year the team lost it's best players, and every year it had to start over missing out on promotion, rinse and repeat.

Why is it ”languishing” in the Latino leagues? Isn’t one of the best things you can do for your child is to get on a Sunday Latino league team? Isn’t the problem with soccer in America that we don’t have a soccer culture? I would think playing in a Latino leagues is enough to develop a player. If clubs are willing to pick up the tabs for a 95th percentile player, do we really have a problem with pay to play?
If we have a system like in Europe, there is a whole new set of problems.

 

[watfly]

I think a youth player's union is going to be very hard. In college, there's the NCAA, a single governing body that covers almost every college player so you have a single entity to negotiate with, but in youth there are too many branches in the system. Also, there's the fact that college players claim (rightfully) that they're making money for the institution (even if they're also paying for school) and so are employees, but in youth soccer, the youths are paying for the privilege all the way through. I'm not sure how that would even work. What leverage do the youths have?

As someone who's a member of a notoriously lopsided union, most of the change comes from the top (the top earners, most famous members, etc.) because they have the most incentive to put in the resources it takes to make change. I'm not sure who that is at the youth soccer level.

I'd rather work on a students'/parents' union for public schools, before I'd tackle youth soccer!

 

[Grace T.]

If you replace “status” with “respect” and “bragging rights” with “winners”, the soccer obsession all of sudden sounds noble.

Why is it ”languishing” in the Latino leagues? Isn’t one of the best things you can do for your child is to get on a Sunday Latino league team? Isn’t the problem with soccer in America that we don’t have a soccer culture? I would think playing in a Latino leagues is enough to develop a player. If clubs are willing to pick up the tabs for a 95th percentile player, do we really have a problem with pay to play?
If we have a system like in Europe, there is a whole new set of problems.

It depends on what you are trying to do. If it’s just to provide kids a fun place to win a trophy it does that (but I note it mostly does that for just Latinos…white kids and especially African American kids are excluded and have to contend with what’s left with ayso at the applicable age). If it’s to prepare kids for college ball then they are getting short shrifted relative to the white kids who have money for travel ball. If it’s to develop pro talent then talent is being left on the table. The system can’t be everything to everyone

I personally like the European system. It works. It has a lot of collateral damage. But it recognizes that only the truly elite need exposure to academy ball…everyone else does tiered rec.

 

[watfly]

I personally like the European system. It works. It has a lot of collateral damage. But it recognizes that only the truly elite need exposure to academy ball…everyone else does tiered rec.

But doesn't the European system have a different financial model which provides significant reward for clubs that develop players vs. US which has to rely primarily on pay-to-play? Pay-to-play is inherently a volume proposition with the lower teams effectively supporting the top team.

Totally off subject, but the new San Diego FC academy is going up quickly and looks first class.

 

[Jamisfoes]

It depends on what you are trying to do. If it’s just to provide kids a fun place to win a trophy it does that (but I note it mostly does that for just Latinos…white kids and especially African American kids are excluded and have to contend with what’s left with ayso at the applicable age). If it’s to prepare kids for college ball then they are getting short shrifted relative to the white kids who have money for travel ball. If it’s to develop pro talent then talent is being left on the table. The system can’t be everything to everyone

I personally like the European system. It works. It has a lot of collateral damage. But it recognizes that only the truly elite need exposure to academy ball…everyone else does tiered rec.

I think the real victims here are the rich parents who paid out $60k in club soccer for a quarter scholarship to a school beneath where they would normally send their kid. What they got in return are bragging rights, status and something to do on the weekends.

 

[focomoso]

I think the real victims here are the rich parents who paid out $60k in club soccer for a quarter scholarship to a school beneath where they would normally send their kid. What they got in return are bragging rights, status and something to do on the weekends.

I hear you. As my sons older friends started committing last year, a lot of the time I was like, "Wouldn't they have gotten in there without soccer?" (Not out loud, obvs.) I've mentioned before that some of his better academic friends ended up choosing academics over soccer (they were smart enough to get into a school that they weren't good enough to make the team). Which sucked a little for the parents, but I do think the admissions offices get the commitment level it takes to play club and factor that in as a plus.

We've always looked at this differently, though. For us, soccer is a tool to get into a better school than they would have without it. Anything above that is icing.