Privileged vs. Full Funded Teams
- Thread starter SuperNatural
- Start date
Sheriff Joe
DA
SoccerFan4Life
PREMIER
The Lebron quote was more of a quote that I hear all the time. My point was that kids in other countries become professional soccer players because that's what they live and breadth every day and they dont have too many options.
In the USA, we have star athletes that drop soccer for other sports because we have plenty of options. MLS promotion or relegation is not the answer. England has Promotion and Relegation in the Premier League and they are NOT a top 10 soccer powerhouse.
Here's a cool article on NFL stars that love soccer and played it when they were young... http://the18.com/news/washington-redskins-corner-josh-norman-latest-nfler-show-his-love-soccer
Quote from above article: "As for Odell Beckham, he said he could have been the next Messi or Neymar if he had stuck with the sport. The human highlight-reel said his first sport was soccer, which he started playing at the age of three. Beckham Jr. continued to play until he was 14 and said that his coach pushed him to try out for the U.S. Men's National Team; however, that likely would have meant going overseas to play and leaving his family at a young age, which was a sacrifice the young Beckham didn’t want to make. But nevertheless, it’s a sport he still loves to this day".
I guess the title of this thread and common theme in this forum is that poorer kids make better soccer players
Not so sure it's that simple? There has to be more factors than that. I searched for some soccer specific data but came up empty. However, according to ex-Google super-nerd, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, poverty hurts kids chances of turning pro, at least when you're talking about basketball. Logic tells me that the same would hold true for soccer players.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/...avidowitz&referer=http://sethsd.com/research/
Regardless, making the sport more accessible to kids of all socioeconomic backgrounds would only help deepen the talent pool due to shear numbers not because they are somehow more talented. My .02
Not so sure it's that simple? There has to be more factors than that. I searched for some soccer specific data but came up empty. However, according to ex-Google super-nerd, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, poverty hurts kids chances of turning pro, at least when you're talking about basketball. Logic tells me that the same would hold true for soccer players. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/...avidowitz&referer=http://sethsd.com/research/
Regardless, making the sport more accessible to kids of all socioeconomic backgrounds would only help deepen the talent pool due to shear numbers not because they are somehow more talented. My .02
Odell Beckham is an unreal athlete and I remember his draft because the Bills traded the #9 or 10 overall pick plus next year's first and fourth round pick to take Sammy Watkins at the 4th or 5th overall pick, and I remember thinking why not stay put and just take Odell Beckham, and keep next years first round pick.
I'm sure Odell Beckham would have been a good soccer player, maybe even good enough to be on the US National Team. But there is absolutely no way he would have been the next Messi or Neymar, it's just crazy talk.
It depends on where you're from. If you're talking about soccer players from S. America, where it seems almost all of the great offensive players come from, most of them are poor or lower middle class.I guess the title of this thread and common theme in this forum is that poorer kids make better soccer players
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/...avidowitz&referer=http://sethsd.com/research/
Regardless, making the sport more accessible to kids of all socioeconomic backgrounds would only help deepen the talent pool due to shear numbers not because they are somehow more talented. My .02
I read in an article that the English academies found they had so little success with upper middle class to rich kids that it wasn't worth recruiting them. I think the big problem with middle class to rich kids is school, the time spent in school and doing homework.
Now imagine some kid in the Brazilian favela playing futsal 4 hrs a day, doing no homework, barely going to school, playing vs. kids with a similar lifestyle, and multiply that by say 50 million kids. How is the US going to compete with that?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
Not sure if Odell would have been next Messi. If he had progressed his soccer skill sets, he at least could have been a guy to defend against a Messi. He is just as quick, faster and bigger. There is no doubt in my mind that we have athletes playing in NFL, NBA, if they had applied their athleticism to soccer could be world class. Just think of the guards in the NBA, 6'0" - 6'4", or the RB's, CB's, FS's in the NFL 5'9 - 6'4" with world class speed and hops and the drive to win.
Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
We are starting to get some of our best natural athletes staying in soccer. The higher that percentage goes, the better we will get.
Yes they are
Yeah, it's actually pretty ignorant for him to self declare himself like that
Buddhabman
SILVER ELITE
Grant him benefit of doubt. Pretty good bet he could equal a good majority of the best soccer players in world in random athletic tests. Say a ladder test for example.
I'm not saying he's not a great athlete, because it is undoubted that he is. He's a phenomenal athlete, but I don't think he would be the "next Messi". 1) Messi spent years in the Barca youth academy outside of his home country. He made that sacrifice that Odell didn't, for the love of the game. 2) It's Messi, it's just, like JJP said, it's crazy talk. IMHO, it's almost an insult to Messi that someone who didn't even pursue the sport compare himself to Messi. It's ignorant. Once again, I am not saying that should he have decided to pursue soccer, he wouldn't have been a good/great player, and like you said, probably a great winger and maybe even be able to be a defender playing against Messi. But not the next Messi. 3) Wasn't I agreeing with what you said?
So true.
younothat
PREMIER
Lets face there are a lot less opportunists for families in certain socio-economic standings. Not necessarily a rich vs poorer deal but its about the culture and work ethics.
Like the 3four3.com article mentioned the establishments in the US is a big part of the problem:
"1) Incumbent American soccer media has been practically curated by the establishment. An establishment that naturally doesn’t want to be critically examined, particularly not at the foundational level. Hence, it neuters its media. How does it accomplish this? Well, it holds a monopoly over the ecosystem. Anyone who doesn’t align with its foundational narrative, its founding culture, is in danger of losing access.
2) Incumbent culture has a recreational mentality – a property that is the antithesis of the hardcore culture the rest of the world has. The soccer structure we live in has been built of, by, and for a casual soccer demographic. It extends from youth all the way to the pro level being addressed here.
When something is casual, there are no stakes. When there are no stakes, nobody gets too heated over things.
After all, “it’s just a game“. That phrase, right there, is the [convenient] foundation upon which American soccer has been built. It’s no wonder we’re mediocre, anybody with that kind of mentality will not achieve excellence.
Contrast that with the rest of the world, where a portion of people’s very identity and self esteem is hinged on their clubs and national teams.
Now, before you robotically react and think that’s sad, reserve judgement until you understand that clubs and national teams across the world represent people at a social, political, economic, and cultural level. It is their flag"
When your hungry(to succeed not to eat) and motivated to play and train hard all the time you have a different mindset vs the casual its just another game we will get them next time deal.
What kids are hungrier or work harder? the suburban well to do kids that have everything laid out for them or the urban kids who have to fight for everything and are given no quarter. I'm sure some players fall in between these two but like some poster mentioned us youth soccer is still considered "soft" and we don't even have min fitness or skill standards and not that many players can be tough and play smart at the same time. Competition is so watered down we have a alphabetic soup of leagues, 4+ different divisions for regional comps like st/nt cups and 3 flights in surf cup, everybody gets medals and the parents are happy but these are really just "soft" landings that most waste weekends and bunch of money on for what?
Like the 3four3.com article mentioned the establishments in the US is a big part of the problem:
"1) Incumbent American soccer media has been practically curated by the establishment. An establishment that naturally doesn’t want to be critically examined, particularly not at the foundational level. Hence, it neuters its media. How does it accomplish this? Well, it holds a monopoly over the ecosystem. Anyone who doesn’t align with its foundational narrative, its founding culture, is in danger of losing access.
2) Incumbent culture has a recreational mentality – a property that is the antithesis of the hardcore culture the rest of the world has. The soccer structure we live in has been built of, by, and for a casual soccer demographic. It extends from youth all the way to the pro level being addressed here.
When something is casual, there are no stakes. When there are no stakes, nobody gets too heated over things.
After all, “it’s just a game“. That phrase, right there, is the [convenient] foundation upon which American soccer has been built. It’s no wonder we’re mediocre, anybody with that kind of mentality will not achieve excellence.
Contrast that with the rest of the world, where a portion of people’s very identity and self esteem is hinged on their clubs and national teams.
Now, before you robotically react and think that’s sad, reserve judgement until you understand that clubs and national teams across the world represent people at a social, political, economic, and cultural level. It is their flag"
When your hungry(to succeed not to eat) and motivated to play and train hard all the time you have a different mindset vs the casual its just another game we will get them next time deal.
What kids are hungrier or work harder? the suburban well to do kids that have everything laid out for them or the urban kids who have to fight for everything and are given no quarter. I'm sure some players fall in between these two but like some poster mentioned us youth soccer is still considered "soft" and we don't even have min fitness or skill standards and not that many players can be tough and play smart at the same time. Competition is so watered down we have a alphabetic soup of leagues, 4+ different divisions for regional comps like st/nt cups and 3 flights in surf cup, everybody gets medals and the parents are happy but these are really just "soft" landings that most waste weekends and bunch of money on for what?
SoccerFan4Life
PREMIER
I think that we also need to be honest on what the goal is for the USA in the future. Do we fail if we make it consistently to quarter finals but can't win the world cup? If that's the case England has failed significantly in both world cup and euro-cup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_European_Championship
Soccer in the USA will grow and we will find more players like Pulisic in the next 10 years. Pulisic is no Messi but he can become our Messi.
If you tell me that our current system can generate 7 more Pulisic's in the next 10 years, to me that's a success.
Also we can't blame it just on the system. Parents have alot of blame on this one as well. How often do we push our kids to the point of exhaustion with soccer. By the time they get to high school alot of kids are burned out. Competition is watered down because many of us think our kids will be the best player out there and we push them to club and willing to pay alot of money to get them to flight 1 and then blame the coaches if our kids fail. This is also happening in baseball with lots of kids getting injured and burned out at a young age. https://www.si.com/edge/2015/07/30/examining-tommy-john-surgery-youth-baseball-mlb
Soccer in the USA will grow and we will find more players like Pulisic in the next 10 years. Pulisic is no Messi but he can become our Messi.
If you tell me that our current system can generate 7 more Pulisic's in the next 10 years, to me that's a success.
Also we can't blame it just on the system. Parents have alot of blame on this one as well. How often do we push our kids to the point of exhaustion with soccer. By the time they get to high school alot of kids are burned out. Competition is watered down because many of us think our kids will be the best player out there and we push them to club and willing to pay alot of money to get them to flight 1 and then blame the coaches if our kids fail. This is also happening in baseball with lots of kids getting injured and burned out at a young age. https://www.si.com/edge/2015/07/30/examining-tommy-john-surgery-youth-baseball-mlb
Except I don't know you can say we found Pulisic. The two best American players since Landon Donovan are Giuseppe Rossi and Pulisic, and both left the US academy system and were trained in Europe.
That would be a huge success, but we arguably haven't produced one.
The game has to be fun. We are not going to produce great players by making it a job.
The Brazilian kids are playing 4 hrs of futsal a day because they are having a great time. Plus they are learning from fathers, uncles, neighbors, friends dads who were pro or semi-pro, and they are playing against kids with a similar background. When you can step outside your door and get a good pickup game going, that is a huge advantage. In contrast, I'm driving my kid all over SoCal killing my car so he can play vs Academy level talent.
Sadly there is tremendous corruption in every part of government. The reason I suggested the idea is to have some sort of way that the player of any income can play at the highest level and get quality training if they are capable of making the team. It also eliminates the families that have the finances but still want to "haggle" the cost.
The point is that the current system really limits our ability to find the best players. Not because poor kids are the best soccer players but because you are limiting the talent pool to only players that can afford $150-$200 a month is fees not including travel etc.
The cost to get a Class "A" coach in Holland is about $60 dollars a year. I know poorly qualified "trainers" that charge more than that per hour in the states.
TFA, FCGS, LAUFA and what some of the coaches at CDA are doing is showing that a pay to play model combined with a fully funded component is providing exposure, better training etc to segments of the population that would have just played hundreds of games without technical and tactical training.
The coaches at these sites are payed coaches but they are not getting rich off the en devour like we see in many south OC clubs. They are also fielding a higher caliber player than most of the pay to play clubs out there.
Robdog
SILVER
Getting back to the title of the threat... are clubs or coaches in the business of developing soccer players or just in the business of making money.
Finding the dedicated coach that can develop their son is what a parent should look for.
Regardless of the "free" or "privileged" categorization .
Finding the dedicated coach that can develop their son is what a parent should look for.
Regardless of the "free" or "privileged" categorization .
Sheriff Joe
DA
Or daughter.
Sheriff Joe
DA
My bad.