Economics of Girls Development Academy

[Dos Equis]

Not knocking on anything, as the comments remain civil so far. The argument started because of the following comments:

Post#3: "Love your post. We already subsidize the A team at every club."
Post#5: "You are correct not all, I would say 99% but there is still that 1% out there."
Post#7: "With all the avenues of information distribution available to parents today (other parents, blogs, boards, observations, etc.), it amuses me that there are still parents out there (and not just the U littles with their blinders) that don't know that at any mega club, their child is either on the A team or they are paying for someone else's kid who is".

Kicker and I have responded that this is not true at Beach, in the sense that most or any significant number of players in their A teams do not get a free ride based only on skill. I cannot say if this is true at other clubs, I have no knowledge about it.
Do some teams at Beach get subsidized by other teams? Maybe, but not in the form of full rides. Before this year all girls practiced the same number of days, in the same fields (maybe an exception could have been the old academy teams, which may have practiced one more day and had the top coaches, but I do not know for sure). Furthermore, I have seen what people call top coaches (e.g. Mauricio and Anton Arrache), train flight II teams. I suspect that now the DA teams are getting partially subsidized, in the form of the fee paid by these players not fully covering the extra number of hours of practice.
I think that the argument about giving extra DA scholarships to girls from lower income families is mute. Those scholarships exist from US soccer; and I am also sure that any DA club will not miss on any deserving "poor" player, the clubs will pay for them.
Regarding the argument about whether big clubs should subsidize their DA program using revenue from other teams, not only I agree with it but when we began talking about it last Winter I added that in exchange, the clubs should commit to keeping a large (but not all) % of DA slots reserved to players developed by the club (so that subsidizing families were happily on board, and to make sure that the clubs commit to development at the younger ages). I was laughed off by the usual suspects. One could argue how much subsidy should there be: a full or fractional ride for every DA player? In the case of Beach, it seems that the managers of the club have decided (I have not talked to them about this, I am just speculating) that every player in the club from a family wealthy enough to pay, will pay the same amount, the standard club fee. When I first read the DA application, I expected that a large club like Beach should commit to fully funding the DA program (for my own benefit and to ensure a successful bid). However, I think that a partial subsidy in which every player in the club pays the same amount stands on "higher moral ground".
And I am aware that if I do not like this model, I can go elsewhere with a fully subsidized DA program.

Unless policy has changed, the US Soccer scholarships for DA are for player travel only, not for club fees, so there is a need for club support for families with financial needs. It was also very much a part of the commitment each club made to be selected to the DA.

Wherever one thinks the moral high ground may be, I am fine with a more "progressive" system where families who can afford it pay a little more, so others less able to can participate -- but everyone pays something. I understand not everyone feels that way, but as you correctly point out, there are plenty of options to find the place that fits your goals.

In my experience, families who search for (and receive) the most money have the shortest longevity with a club. People do not appreciate what they do not have to pay for.

 

[younothat]

The high cost of club soccer is even more so in USSDA is one of the biggest problems with youth soccer in the US.

Costs are not just out of pocket, commute, travel, opportunities missed for other things, etc.

Unless you have deep pockets with a corporate backers; AEG, LAFC, Bara Academy, and or sponsors/partnerships getting more difficult to compete. F.C. Golden State has partnered with SOLTILO in that vain.

Some of clubs may find it difficult to keep academy going and players staying because they simply don't have enough resources long term, for the boys almost like two tiers; those /w adequate resources and sponsorship and those without. Not many P2P teams at the top of the tables or making the playoffs for example.

"Pay to play is an identified problem because it filters out talent from reaching the higher levels of the game"

Besides the high costs the next biggest problem is the lack of promotion and relegation

http://blog.3four3.com/2015/09/14/pay-to-play-and-the-link-to-promotion-relegation/

.

Club soccer for the most part is a illusion that pretends to be something its not

The whole home town club scene has been replaced with franchises and affiliates, they may call them self a club but operate on a franchise/affiliate model.

The Illusion goes all the way to pro soccer, MLS doesn't really have clubs what they have is franchises that are part of company MLS IIC

FC Cincinnati in the USL is a actual club based in Ohio and they went all the way to the semi finals before barely getting beat in OT by the NY Redbulls and MLS in the US open club.

Many are called but few are chosen is what club soccer reminds me of.

 

[Striker17]

Not knocking on anything, as the comments remain civil so far. The argument started because of the following comments:

Post#3: "Love your post. We already subsidize the A team at every club."
Post#5: "You are correct not all, I would say 99% but there is still that 1% out there."
Post#7: "With all the avenues of information distribution available to parents today (other parents, blogs, boards, observations, etc.), it amuses me that there are still parents out there (and not just the U littles with their blinders) that don't know that at any mega club, their child is either on the A team or they are paying for someone else's kid who is".

Kicker and I have responded that this is not true at Beach, in the sense that most or any significant number of players in their A teams do not get a free ride based only on skill. I cannot say if this is true at other clubs, I have no knowledge about it.
Do some teams at Beach get subsidized by other teams? Maybe, but not in the form of full rides. Before this year all girls practiced the same number of days, in the same fields (maybe an exception could have been the old academy teams, which may have practiced one more day and had the top coaches, but I do not know for sure). Furthermore, I have seen what people call top coaches (e.g. Mauricio and Anton Arrache), train flight II teams. I suspect that now the DA teams are getting partially subsidized, in the form of the fee paid by these players not fully covering the extra number of hours of practice.
I think that the argument about giving extra DA scholarships to girls from lower income families is mute. Those scholarships exist from US soccer; and I am also sure that any DA club will not miss on any deserving "poor" player, the clubs will pay for them.
Regarding the argument about whether big clubs should subsidize their DA program using revenue from other teams, not only I agree with it but when we began talking about it last Winter I added that in exchange, the clubs should commit to keeping a large (but not all) % of DA slots reserved to players developed by the club (so that subsidizing families were happily on board, and to make sure that the clubs commit to development at the younger ages). I was laughed off by the usual suspects. One could argue how much subsidy should there be: a full or fractional ride for every DA player? In the case of Beach, it seems that the managers of the club have decided (I have not talked to them about this, I am just speculating) that every player in the club from a family wealthy enough to pay, will pay the same amount, the standard club fee. When I first read the DA application, I expected that a large club like Beach should commit to fully funding the DA program (for my own benefit and to ensure a successful bid). However, I think that a partial subsidy in which every player in the club pays the same amount stands on "higher moral ground".
And I am aware that if I do not like this model, I can go elsewhere with a fully subsidized DA program.

Stand behind every one of my posts and yes this isn't an argument

 

[SocalPapa]

Regarding the argument about whether big clubs should subsidize their DA program using revenue from other teams, not only I agree with it but when we began talking about it last Winter I added that in exchange, the clubs should commit to keeping a large (but not all) % of DA slots reserved to players developed by the club (so that subsidizing families were happily on board, and to make sure that the clubs commit to development at the younger ages). I was laughed off by the usual suspects.

Thanks mbeach. This is exactly what I was trying to get at. There are any number of ways girls DA might be funded, but if you are going to ask parents of non-DA players to bear the cost it seems there should at least be a prospect of their daughters some day benefiting. Reserving those DA slots for home grown players seems like a good option. Otherwise, what's the point of having individual clubs sponsor the academy teams in the first place?

As for full pay families subsidizing need-based scholarships for other players, I have absolutely no problem with that. That's a completely different situation (not unlike paying full tuition to a college that offers need-based aid).

 

[Eagle33]

As for full pay families subsidizing need-based scholarships for other players, I have absolutely no problem with that. That's a completely different situation (not unlike paying full tuition to a college that offers need-based aid).

Need-based scholarships is already available for DA players.
http://www.ussoccerda.com/scholarship-program

 

[Dos Equis]

Need-based scholarships is already available for DA players.
http://www.ussoccerda.com/scholarship-program

This program was originally designed around assumed fully funded DA programs. Hence, in the third paragraph, the following language still exists ... "This program is designed to assist in travel-related expenses for full-time players registered to U-13 through U-18/19 teams within the Development Academy during the 2017-18 season."

They later say it also is used for club fees, and we know money is somewhat fungible, so it may be. However, they are assisting 280 kids out of over 7,000 participants (my conservative estimate based on their boy club numbers at each age group), or at most 4%. That low number, and an average scholarship amount of $1,35o, leaves a pretty big gap for the non-fully funded clubs to fill if they want to make the program accessible to kids from lower income households.

 

[jpeter]

Need-based scholarships is already available for DA players.
http://www.ussoccerda.com/scholarship-program

Yeah but with a avgerge around $1100 per player those are partial scholarships. Don't know of any player who has been fully sponsored just by ussda alone.

These go directly to the clubs not the players and they still need ways to cover the additional costs beyond those scholarships sums which don't come close to the real costs per player, YMMV.

 

[MakeAPlay]

Unless policy has changed, the US Soccer scholarships for DA are for player travel only, not for club fees, so there is a need for club support for families with financial needs. It was also very much a part of the commitment each club made to be selected to the DA.

Wherever one thinks the moral high ground may be, I am fine with a more "progressive" system where families who can afford it pay a little more, so others less able to can participate -- but everyone pays something. I understand not everyone feels that way, but as you correctly point out, there are plenty of options to find the place that fits your goals.

In my experience, families who search for (and receive) the most money have the shortest longevity with a club. People do not appreciate what they do not have to pay for.

I have to agree with you again. The only time that I think that isn't the case is the U18 year. Sometimes it is a struggle to field even one top team consistently with all of the things that pull the girls in different directions their senior year of high school. Sometimes giving scholarships to a couple of players makes a difference. In general though everyone should pay something.

 

[Sheriff Joe]

I have to agree with you again. The only time that I think that isn't the case is the U18 year. Sometimes it is a struggle to field even one top team consistently with all of the things that pull the girls in different directions their senior year of high school. Sometimes giving scholarships to a couple of players makes a difference. In general though everyone should pay something.

Kind of a touchy subject, I believe how it is presented to the parents makes a big difference. If the other parents have to pay for another player they should have a say in that decision. Probably not real world, especially with most parents just going along to get along and trying not to make waves.

 

[Kevin Redding]

I'd always rather get something for free than pay for it, but I understand that the coaches need (and deserve!) to make a living. To save money, we've told our club to avoid traveling to out of region showcases. My kids will likely play in region so no need to travel elsewhere and spend $$$ to do it.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

The President of the LA Galaxy said on the radio Wednesday that they have spent "several million dollars" fully funding their girls development academy program (including improving a soccer field).

I wondered how that could be possible. The Galaxy is a for profit enterprise. How do they expect to get that money back? It's different from MLS teams that have sponsored similar boys teams. The Seattle Sounders, for example, benefited when Jordan Morris chose to come back and play for them as a "home grown" player. But girls DA players obviously will not play in the MLS. (Nor will they likely earn a livable wage playing professional women's soccer. The team cap, for all players combined, is $315,000 a year!)

So how can the Galaxy afford to invest millions of dollars for teenagers to practice soccer. Is it marketing - do they just hope to make it up in increased licensing fees from the affiliate LA Galaxy clubs (South Bay, Orange County, San Diego)?

And what about the other clubs? Are they fully funding their DA teams too? If so, then I guess they've now just set in stone a policy that full-pay families have to subsidize the top players (who may have no prior connection to the club). Is everyone okay with that?

I assume the market will decide the longevity of Galaxy girls DA. Galaxy, no doubt, has creditors and good intentions aren't considered currency at the moment. Unless you're a member of Congress.

 

[Bruddah IZ]

This program was originally designed around assumed fully funded DA programs. Hence, in the third paragraph, the following language still exists ... "This program is designed to assist in travel-related expenses for full-time players registered to U-13 through U-18/19 teams within the Development Academy during the 2017-18 season."

They later say it also is used for club fees, and we know money is somewhat fungible, so it may be. However, they are assisting 280 kids out of over 7,000 participants (my conservative estimate based on their boy club numbers at each age group), or at most 4%. That low number, and an average scholarship amount of $1,35o, leaves a pretty big gap for the non-fully funded clubs to fill if they want to make the program accessible to kids from lower income households.

All you had to say is "fungible".

 

[younothat]

All you had to say is "fungible".

Yeah the avg scholarship is < $ 1,500 and it goes directly to the club not the individual for the 5% or so that get them

To qualify for a scholarships you have to be earning & living in poverty wo/ assets like a house, stocks, expensive cars, etc

The fact < 5% get them tells you about the demographic of the DA....US soccer should do a lot more with the 100M$$ war chest they have....how about getting more lower income players involved by investing from the bottom up instead of the top down?

 

[Bruddah IZ]

Yeah the avg scholarship is < $ 1,500 and it goes directly to the club not the individual for the 5% or so that get them

To qualify for a scholarships you have to be earning & living in poverty wo/ assets like a house, stocks, expensive cars, etc

The fact < 5% get them tells you about the demographic of the DA....US soccer should do a lot more with the 100M$$ war chest they have....how about getting more lower income players involved by investing from the bottom up instead of the top down?

Surf has a nice system where parents and players can work off scholarships or contribute to player accounts for working at Surf Cup.