Crystal Palace Academy Selection Process - EYE OPENING!

[ColdPizza]

I came across this documentary about some boys going through the Crystal Palace Academy selection process and getting their contracts renewed. It was pretty eye-opening to see what the kids in England (and am I assuming all European countries) go through. A few fathers that didn't make it but are helping their kids try and make it. What do you all think about this?

I know a few of the MLS teams also have this type of process. Can someone speak to what they go through?

Eight-year old Romie has signed on but does dad Wes have unrealistic expectations of how far he can go? Ten-year old Harry is attempting to earn a contract for next season, against stiff competition. And 14-year old Jesse is small for his age and feeling the pressure of a retain or release contract decision at the end of the season. Will Harry and Jessie avoid the cut at the end of the season and keep their Premier League dreams alive?

 

[Jar!23]

I've seen a few of these documentaries. I've heard many parents here complain about pay-to-play and say "In Europe, you don't have to pay!" type of comments. Of course, in Europe, their kid would have probably been cut years ago!

 

[focomoso]

I've seen a few of these documentaries. I've heard many parents here complain about pay-to-play and say "In Europe, you don't have to pay!" type of comments. Of course, in Europe, their kid would have probably been cut years ago!

Exactly. In Europe the kids with no chance of going pro focus on school and maybe kick the ball around for fun on weekends. And that line is drawn much higher and earlier.

 

[Grace T.]

Exactly. In Europe the kids with no chance of going pro focus on school and maybe kick the ball around for fun on weekends. And that line is drawn much higher and earlier.

The heartbreaking moment though is if you are already out of primary school and get dropped by that point it's very difficult to catch up academically. Europe tracks for the arts and academics as well (the tests are mostly subject based which is why you hear about "A levels" in the UK). It's why a lot of their academy washout wind up playing in college here. In academics the tradeoff is you get (mostly) free college, but we're going to ration it and you don't get the bells and whistle like college sports.

 

[aong cangkol]

The heartbreaking moment though is if you are already out of primary school and get dropped by that point it's very difficult to catch up academically. Europe tracks for the arts and academics as well (the tests are mostly subject based which is why you hear about "A levels" in the UK). It's why a lot of their academy washout wind up playing in college here. In academics the tradeoff is you get (mostly) free college, but we're going to ration it and you don't get the bells and whistle like college sports.

I have to say, if you have money US system is much better system, any reasonably athletic kids can still play ECNL with extra private lessons etc. It is fun for us that can pay. I never lived in England but I think it would be difficult to pay your way thru a Crystal Palace academy, for example.
If you think about building US national team then our system is not efficient because we filtered out parents who cannot drive their kids to practice (not even talking about pay to play yet).
US population in general hate the idea of free college because it only benefits those going to colleges. Those without kids or have less kids or have kids not going to college practically subsidizing other people's kids.
Free high school is acceptable because (almost) everyone goes to high school.

 

[aong cangkol]

I've seen a few of these documentaries. I've heard many parents here complain about pay-to-play and say "In Europe, you don't have to pay!" type of comments. Of course, in Europe, their kid would have probably been cut years ago!

but they have many options to play "competitive" rec soccer. I think we have the population and interest, at least in LA, just no real structure in AYSO.

 

[Jar!23]

The heartbreaking moment though is if you are already out of primary school and get dropped by that point it's very difficult to catch up academically. Europe tracks for the arts and academics as well (the tests are mostly subject based which is why you hear about "A levels" in the UK). It's why a lot of their academy washout wind up playing in college here. In academics the tradeoff is you get (mostly) free college, but we're going to ration it and you don't get the bells and whistle like college sports.

Correct. I know someone from an European country. He was tracked early on to be on the vocational track, not academic. By middle school, kids are sorted.

 

[focomoso]

I have to say, if you have money US system is much better system, any reasonably athletic kids can still play ECNL with extra private lessons etc.

Why is that a good thing? Why would someone put so much time and money into soccer (practice, travel, private lessons, etc.) if they're not going to play at the next level (anything after high school)? I'd think that it would be better to play just high school or on your local rec. team for fun and spend more time in school.

 

[Grace T.]

Correct. I know someone from an European country. He was tracked early on to be on the vocational track, not academic. By middle school, kids are sorted.

There are exceptions, especially in the monarchies, if you are rich, connected or special (royalty). It's offensive to those that work and have to pay for it, but the exchange is the more robust social safety net. Still, especially for example with new immigrants, it causes resentment for the people paying the social safety net and the immigrants (whose children get sorted into the bottom service tiers unless they managed to get into an arts or athletic academy and there just aren't that many slots...but hence why in places like France a lot of the up and coming players are from immigrant backgrounds).

but they have many options to play "competitive" rec soccer. I think we have the population and interest, at least in LA, just no real structure in AYSO.

Yes, but outside of England (or at least in the south where I have direct experience in Spain, Italy and France), it's more like Latino League than either club or AYSO. For one thing it's tiered by ability. For another, everyone plays futsal because field space is very limited. For actual soccer, it's really hard to come by and you can't just play pickup in a public park since you'll get ticketed. Did summer stints for work a while back in Spain and Italy. The best fields are reserved for the local first teams....rec teams are lucky to get maybe once a day practice....or you get sent to a fugly field......my kid still brags having to play GK with a rusty frame, no net, no grass, rocks on the pitch and with a rusted burned out wreck of a car at his cousin's team in the wide open countryside (at the time he was all whiney don't make me do this but now it's a point of pride). Where they play is in school (usually if in the city on concrete) or in the street like we would basketball.

 

[focomoso]

The best fields are reserved for the local first teams....rec teams are lucky to get maybe once a day practice....or you get sent to a fugly field......my kid still brags having to play GK with a rusty frame, no net, no grass, rocks on the pitch and with a rusted burned out wreck of a car at his cousin's team in the wide open countryside (at the time he was all whiney don't make me do this but now it's a point of pride). Where they play is in school (usually if in the city on concrete) or in the street like we would basketball.

My son played pickup in the "factory fields" in Poland. Many factories or factory towns used to have their own team, but that's almost disappeared now. The fields remain and are not well maintained and, as you say, the goals are rusty and have no nets, but still you can play. One interesting thing I noticed, most of the kids playing were Ukrainian, not Polish, as Poland has many immigrants from Ukraine due to the war and the Polish kids were at home playing their xBoxes...

 

[LASTMAN14]

I've seen a few of these documentaries. I've heard many parents here complain about pay-to-play and say "In Europe, you don't have to pay!" type of comments. Of course, in Europe, their kid would have probably been cut years ago!

I have played with ex-pats from the UK over the years and have a friend who coached at AJAX academy. Some have made the first team and others cut in their youth. But all have said it’s year-by year and no one is promised anything.

 

[whatithink]

I have to say, if you have money US system is much better system, any reasonably athletic kids can still play ECNL with extra private lessons etc. It is fun for us that can pay. I never lived in England but I think it would be difficult to pay your way thru a Crystal Palace academy, for example.
If you think about building US national team then our system is not efficient because we filtered out parents who cannot drive their kids to practice (not even talking about pay to play yet).
US population in general hate the idea of free college because it only benefits those going to colleges. Those without kids or have less kids or have kids not going to college practically subsidizing other people's kids.
Free high school is acceptable because (almost) everyone goes to high school.

Just because you pay, it doesn't make it a better system. I expect that the US spends more on youth soccer than any other country in the world, and the results are mediocre at best.

I'm not sure why you think the US population in general hates the idea of free college. College debt in the US is now at around $1.6T. That's a stunningly ridiculous amount. Prior generations, who did not have to pay as much for college, hate the idea of free, "cos they had to pay". I would say that it would be fairer to say that the US population in general hates the cost of college, but are willing to pay (something). The cost has increased a way faster clip over the last 20 years than reasonable.

As this is about the UK, think about this for a second, Oxford & Cambridge are both top 10 worldwide universities, and they cost a UK citizen GBP 9,250 per year to attend.

you don't get the bells and whistle like college sports.

Nowhere else thinks college sports are bells and whistles. The reality is that outside football & basketball, most sports are not bells and whistles. Now that college athletes are "pro", the colleges should charge the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. for every player drafted ... if they are the development system, aka academies, then they should get funded directly from the pros who pull in billions annually - or just stop.

 

[JeterwastheBEST]

I have to say, if you have money US system is much better system, any reasonably athletic kids can still play ECNL with extra private lessons etc. It is fun for us that can pay. I never lived in England but I think it would be difficult to pay your way thru a Crystal Palace academy, for example.
If you think about building US national team then our system is not efficient because we filtered out parents who cannot drive their kids to practice (not even talking about pay to play yet).
US population in general hate the idea of free college because it only benefits those going to colleges. Those without kids or have less kids or have kids not going to college practically subsidizing other people's kids.
Free high school is acceptable because (almost) everyone goes to high school.

So, what you're really saying is all of US is narcissistic...? Hard to argue against that at this point in time....

 

[sigmabody]

Just because you pay, it doesn't make it a better system. I expect that the US spends more on youth soccer than any other country in the world, and the results are mediocre at best.

Probably sorta a "duh", but the more people who train in a sport generally (within a selection group), and the more quality training they get, the better the average outcomes from that group for top talent will be on average. You can see examples of this across the board: US with basketball, Europe and South American with soccer, etc. The US has one of the best women's soccer teams in the world, for example, because of the relative higher opportunity for girls/women to train and compete in sports in the US.

The "issue" with early selection and tracking is that it narrow the pool. Now that might not be huge factor; if narrowing the pool still captures 90%+ of the would-be professional talent players, for example, then it's not hurting much, even though it might trim some outer prospects. The US system allows these players to continue training, but only if their families have money; on balance, the US system is probably worse (for the pool), because the US is trimming the pool based on access/money, rather than ability, and the latter is almost certain to capture a higher percentage of the would-be professional players.

An ideal state (for national sport level, ignoring other societal effects) would probably be to have a robust and free academy system across the US which was entirely subsidized (inclusive of travel, continuing education, other family needs, etc.), to capture maybe the top 90% of professional level talent (if possible), and also have a pay-to-play club system to allow anyone else with resources to continue to train independently with the hopes of eventually "moving up". In concept, this would give the US the best possible pool from which to select the top players for national teams and such.

 

[focomoso]

An ideal state (for national sport level, ignoring other societal effects) would probably be to have a robust and free academy system across the US which was entirely subsidized (inclusive of travel, continuing education, other family needs, etc.), to capture maybe the top 90% of professional level talent (if possible).

The main issue in the US is that of the tiny talent pool of potential professional athletes, 80% end up in basketball or football (or hockey / baseball / ...). There are pockets where soccer has a strong hold, but even in Southern California, if a kid is an exceptional athlete and not big enough for basketball, they'll likely get pulled into football in high school.

This is also starting to happen in Europe as basketball takes hold. I think eventually US soccer will make strides compared to the rest of the world, but that'll have more to do with the rest of the world diversifying than the US actually getting better.

 

[Grace T.]

Just because you pay, it doesn't make it a better system. I expect that the US spends more on youth soccer than any other country in the world, and the results are mediocre at best.

I'm not sure why you think the US population in general hates the idea of free college. College debt in the US is now at around $1.6T. That's a stunningly ridiculous amount. Prior generations, who did not have to pay as much for college, hate the idea of free, "cos they had to pay". I would say that it would be fairer to say that the US population in general hates the cost of college, but are willing to pay (something). The cost has increased a way faster clip over the last 20 years than reasonable.

As this is about the UK, think about this for a second, Oxford & Cambridge are both top 10 worldwide universities, and they cost a UK citizen GBP 9,250 per year to attend.


Nowhere else thinks college sports are bells and whistles. The reality is that outside football & basketball, most sports are not bells and whistles. Now that college athletes are "pro", the colleges should charge the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, etc. for every player drafted ... if they are the development system, aka academies, then they should get funded directly from the pros who pull in billions annually - or just stop.

The only thing charging a solidarity payment would do is cause the NBA and MLB to loosen the rules to bypass college. The NFL would have to start its own farm league but if the solidarity payment is high enough it might make sense.

 

[Grace T.]

The main issue in the US is that of the tiny talent pool of potential professional athletes, 80% end up in basketball or football (or hockey / baseball / ...). There are pockets where soccer has a strong hold, but even in Southern California, if a kid is an exceptional athlete and not big enough for basketball, they'll likely get pulled into football in high school.

This is also starting to happen in Europe as basketball takes hold. I think eventually US soccer will make strides compared to the rest of the world, but that'll have more to do with the rest of the world diversifying than the US actually getting better.

Different build required for football/hockey (except maybe GKs who many QBs would probably be outstanding). I agree there's a pull of professional athletes away from the pool (why pick soccer with it's low salary if there are opportunities that offer more), but that pool, given the limits of academy slots in Europe, is equivalent at least to Uruguay, Portugal, Croatia and the Netherlands which still outperform us. Jordan and Kobe would have made excellent soccer players if they had started early but I doubt Shaq would have (the big feet alone would have been a problem)

But I don't think it's as much of a limit as generally stated. The bigger issue is the talent left on the floor early on (because academies don't start until U13 and it's pay or play before then, so the talent in say for example Latino League is getting left on the table) and the transition from U18 to U21 (because we don't have a robust minor league to develop these talents). The other limiting factor is we have way fewer academies than Europe as a whole but that might not be an issue if the MLS pyramid scheme can stop from collapsing ;-)

 

[whatithink]

Different build required for football/hockey (except maybe GKs who many QBs would probably be outstanding). I agree there's a pull of professional athletes away from the pool (why pick soccer with it's low salary if there are opportunities that offer more), but that pool, given the limits of academy slots in Europe, is equivalent at least to Uruguay, Portugal, Croatia and the Netherlands which still outperform us. Jordan and Kobe would have made excellent soccer players if they had started early but I doubt Shaq would have (the big feet alone would have been a problem)

But I don't think it's as much of a limit as generally stated. The bigger issue is the talent left on the floor early on (because academies don't start until U13 and it's pay or play before then, so the talent in say for example Latino League is getting left on the table) and the transition from U18 to U21 (because we don't have a robust minor league to develop these talents). The other limiting factor is we have way fewer academies than Europe as a whole but that might not be an issue if the MLS pyramid scheme can stop from collapsing ;-)

I don't think you can say that Kobe & Jordan would have made excellent soccer players. They were both 6'6", which is nowhere near an ideal soccer height. They may have been, but their height alone would have been a major impediment and restrict where they could be effectively used on a soccer field.

The problem on the pro soccer side is that the kids being produced in the US are not good enough to break into the teams in Europe, even the lower leagues which pay better than the MLS. You can earn a very good living in the English Championship with an average salary of $500K per year, for example. This is a systemic issue which goes back to coaching (being mediocre) and pay to play (as a barrier to playing at a decent level to advance) ... imvho.

The main issue in the US is that of the tiny talent pool of potential professional athletes, 80% end up in basketball or football (or hockey / baseball / ...). There are pockets where soccer has a strong hold, but even in Southern California, if a kid is an exceptional athlete and not big enough for basketball, they'll likely get pulled into football in high school.

The average NBA players is 6'6". the average EPL player is 5'11". If we take your 80% stat, we could easily say that 80% of the NBA & NFL players would never make good soccer players. For NBA, it would be the "shorter" players, and for NFL we're talking RB, WR, corners, maybe some special teams, but definitely ruling out DL, OL, TEs etc. - way too big.

There's (apparently) 2.3M youth (male) soccer players in the US. There's 1M HS football players. Basketball has greater numbers than both, 4M+ from what I could find.

 

[SuperSoccerStar]

I think it would of been dope to have a system like that. Daughter would of been taken care of and I wouldn't of had to spend all this money for the past 8 years.

 

[focomoso]

Different build required for football/hockey (except maybe GKs who many QBs would probably be outstanding). I agree there's a pull of professional athletes away from the pool (why pick soccer with it's low salary if there are opportunities that offer more), but that pool, given the limits of academy slots in Europe, is equivalent at least to Uruguay, Portugal, Croatia and the Netherlands which still outperform us. Jordan and Kobe would have made excellent soccer players if they had started early but I doubt Shaq would have (the big feet alone would have been a problem)

I'm not sure the builds for football and soccer are that different. For linemen, sure, but receivers or cornerbacks would make excelent forwards / wingers and linebackers could play defense. Football players are big because they train to get big, but most NFL running backs would fit right into a soccer pitch if they trained running for 90 minutes rather than short bursts of 10 seconds.

My son played with a boy whose dad was a pro-bowl defensive lineman. He had world-class speed and while he weighed 260 when he was playing, he had to work to get to that size. But he was "only" 6'4" which means he would not have been too tall for soccer. We talked about it and he said he though he would have been good soccer player, but he'd never even seen a game until his son started playing.

Meanwhile, my son is at the age where a lot of his friends are starting to bulk up. He goes to the gym with them, but no matter what he does, he can't get as big because he burns so many calories playing soccer all the time.

But while body type does matter (yes, Shaq would suck at soccer), it's a "long-tail" problem. The number of high-level athletes in any population is small. The number of elite athletes is smaller and the number of world-class athletes is vanishingly small. If 90% of all athletes play soccer as they do In Europe and South America, any Jordans or Kobes (or Deion Sanders' or Jerry Rices, 6'1" and 6'2" respectively) will play soccer. You only need 2 or 3 world class players and 20 or so elite players to have a dominant team.

In the US, for every Pulisic, there's a Steph Curry, James Harden or Shai Gilgeous-Alexander that went into BBall and a Justin Jefferson, Tyreek Hill or Cooper Kupp that went into football. Maybe not all of those guys have the ability to run for 90 minutes, but some of the elite but not world-class guys might turn out to. I think Chris Paul, for example, could be a world class 8 or 10 because of his ability to see passing lanes.