This seems like the first reasonable and logical approach presented through this mess. Any word on if playing up will happen for youngers and socal league? Or what any of the San Diego based clubs are doing? Tryouts are going on right now for youngers which is crazy given the convos apparently still happening :/
Get ready folks
- Thread starter soccer4us
- Start date
No idea what individual clubs will do, except that apparently US Soccer has said there will be no change to BY for the 25/26 season (which implies that tournaments and such will be organized along those lines). My son's club sent out a notice around a month ago that it could be changing, but I think that was before people realized that most of the support was astroturfing (as far as I can tell). Our club has not sent out any update for us yet.
As I speculated above, telling clubs (and leagues by extension) that they were welcome to organize teams such that younger kids "played up" if they wanted to align with SY, without changing any organizational rules, seems like the best approach, and would allow ECNL to mandate this for teams in their league as desired. This has the bonus that if all orgs do this proactively anyway, then that would demonstrate a strong organic demand for the change. Conversely, if only ECNL does it (or nobody does), then I suspect it will be dropped (although ECNL could still continue with that organization if they wanted, in that scenario).
My advice to parents would be to try out for the club you want, and ignore the BY/SY team organization decision(s) within the club. Aside from potentially changing teammates, and for some kids in the single year they start HS, the distinction makes no practical difference in terms of training and experience within the club. For most kids (especially younger kids), aside from the potential disruptions and confusion for parents, this debate means nothing.
As I speculated above, telling clubs (and leagues by extension) that they were welcome to organize teams such that younger kids "played up" if they wanted to align with SY, without changing any organizational rules, seems like the best approach, and would allow ECNL to mandate this for teams in their league as desired. This has the bonus that if all orgs do this proactively anyway, then that would demonstrate a strong organic demand for the change. Conversely, if only ECNL does it (or nobody does), then I suspect it will be dropped (although ECNL could still continue with that organization if they wanted, in that scenario).
My advice to parents would be to try out for the club you want, and ignore the BY/SY team organization decision(s) within the club. Aside from potentially changing teammates, and for some kids in the single year they start HS, the distinction makes no practical difference in terms of training and experience within the club. For most kids (especially younger kids), aside from the potential disruptions and confusion for parents, this debate means nothing.
Code
GOLD
@Offside no S getting angry because he can't understand the difference between being trapped and being offset.
Just in case a write-up hasn't been linked yet (unsure if one was), I found this one fairly informative: https://www.soccerwire.com/news/you...ow-flexibility-for-birth-year-or-school-year/
In particular, the sentiment in preference between BY and SY, in terms of feedback to US Soccer (at least per their accounting), was roughly 50/50. This was why the landed on "allow flexibility in 26/27, because there is no single correct answer for everyone".
Note that, as I read it (and as noted above), this decision doesn't preclude a league like ECNL from organizing teams such that all the younger players born between 1/1 and 7/30 "played up" on the teams in the league, so that they could effectively align on SY anyway. US Soccer just said for purposes of official registration (and by extension, general cross-league organizational activities), 25/26 would still be BY across the board, and punted on the rest of the would-be logistical issues for now.
In particular, the sentiment in preference between BY and SY, in terms of feedback to US Soccer (at least per their accounting), was roughly 50/50. This was why the landed on "allow flexibility in 26/27, because there is no single correct answer for everyone".
Note that, as I read it (and as noted above), this decision doesn't preclude a league like ECNL from organizing teams such that all the younger players born between 1/1 and 7/30 "played up" on the teams in the league, so that they could effectively align on SY anyway. US Soccer just said for purposes of official registration (and by extension, general cross-league organizational activities), 25/26 would still be BY across the board, and punted on the rest of the would-be logistical issues for now.
Right, but doesn't this make things even crazier for ECNL clubs? What happens when they want to go to non-ECNL events? What happens with the teams in their club that aren't in ECNL? The nice thing about the mandated BY grouping is that it was well understood across the board. Is the idea ECNL teams would then play up a year in non-ECNL events? I can't imagine that going over well with the ECNL clubs, parents, and players.
Hopefully this applies to
Crazy idea - but maybe the clubs could re-organize their players for "birth year tournaments" - if playing in those tournaments was necessary. The idea that players can only be with the same group of kids for an entire year is a fallacy. It's maybe how it's done, but doesn't mean it has to be that way.
I think big national tournaments would have a say in all of this as well. If ECNL clubs were forced to either play up or re-shuffle for these non-ECNL events, I suspect they would just not go. The big tournament organizers would undoubtedly see revenue drop pretty significantly. All the opponents of moving to SY have been up in arms because of the potential of reshuffling -- I don't see how the folks on the other side of this coin wouldn't be just as upset with reshuffling for non-ECNL events.
aong cangkol
SILVER
Based on my kids experience, SY cutoff has participation rate impact beginning middle school for rec level (which includes flight 1,2,3 socal league). I agree it does not matter for MLSNext and ECNL.
Most of boys/girls who play other sports quit soccer or put it as second priority because it is more fun to play with classmates.
If, hypothetically, ECNL teams (within clubs; ECNL is a league, most clubs seem to have mostly non-ECNL teams) would be structured such that kids born between 1/1 and 7/31 would always be "playing up", then those teams could participate in events which were organized by BY or SY (as the teams would then meet the age cutoff requirements for both). So, for example, if ECNL mandated SY age cutoffs for teams in their league, said teams could meet that requirement, while still playing in normal/general external events organized around BY age cutoffs.
Whether or not that would go over well with ECNL participants is not something I will speculate on, but I would note that nominally, ECNL should represent a higher level of ability in general, so in concept that would better align the competitive level within external events (ie: with lower-ability teams with slightly older kids). I would note though that, obviously, if it didn't go over well after a year, they could always move back to align with what other leagues and events were doing, if they wanted.
Personally, as I said above, I think that solution makes the most sense long-term as well (as a mandate from US Soccer). That is, all general events and registrations would remain aligned for BY cutoffs, because that's easy to understand and make uniform (vs various SY definitions and cutoffs). Leagues could then make their own requirements for team participation, which might require some players to "play up" (depending on the league requirements) to field a team participating in that league, but said team would then also always be able to play in any BY events as well. I'm sure some parents would grumble about how their kids were not winning as much in that scenario, but that honestly seems like the most sensible long-term compromise also, at least to me.
Let me ask you this I I will tell you that everybody is on the edge of their seat for this question. Christian, the birth year update. I don't know if we can put the drum roll in post-production, but yes, we do have an update we're getting into this a little bit yeah, we're going to get into this a little bit more next podcast, but just to to give us an update, what do you? Yeah, so worst kept secret.
Speaker 3: 32:19
It's out there as various statements being made by people press releases press releases.
Speaker 3: 32:25
We always love that votes cut to the bottom line no change for this coming fall of 2025, but for fall of 2026, there will be. Technically, I think what they call it is a relaxing of the mandate or removal of the mandate of birth year. We could argue whether the mandate really had any power anyway or was more influential. But US soccer had a meeting, decided that doing it at this time is a little too short notice. Not going to mandate that it goes to school year, it sounds like Just going to remove a mandate that it goes to birth year, so people can do what they think is best.
Speaker 3: 33:03
They did a bunch of surveys on this and I think the short answer in the survey is that, you know, shockingly, people don't like change. That's one thing. So, even if they acknowledge the problems with birth year, there are people that just don't want to change because change bad. I guess you take that with a grain of salt. More people preferred school year than birth year. Majority of people say they have players being negatively impacted by the birth year age change.
Speaker 3: 33:28
One interesting thing that's come out of it is if going back to school year because, again, to make it very, very clear, what we expect is the mandate removed for the fall of 26. At that point most states determine school age by a cutoff of August 31, or September one or later. There's 50 states and there's there's some states that are, I think, as late as even October and how they calculate a school year. But there's more that are in that not 831, 91 cutoff than there are 81. And if the goal is to align more and more kids in grade level, I would think that that will become the more likely cutoff of September 1.
Speaker 4: 34:23
Not completely unexpected, right? Weren't sure what the timing kind of would be Not completely unexpected, so we will get into that deeper. On our next podcast We'll talk about it and how it may look and how it may be implemented and all those kinds of things.
Speaker 3: 34:42
One of the interesting parts just to say this and we'll talk about this in more detail, I'll have a guest on, I think, next podcast to talk about this is really kind of an acknowledgement that there is no developmental benefit for one or the other in terms of the cutoff itself. Makes a change in a player's trajectory, a player's ambition.
Speaker 3: 35:01
The level of play all of that stuff is is hogwash to put it scientifically, and that really this is about what people think is best for the player overall the biggest hurdle is disruption yeah and you know, I think we all understand because we've talked about it ad nauseum, but the disruption of listen the reason I say that is because you still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage. Um, it has actually nothing to do with that. That's just an attempt to weaponize age groups.
Speaker 3: 32:19
It's out there as various statements being made by people press releases press releases.
Speaker 3: 32:25
We always love that votes cut to the bottom line no change for this coming fall of 2025, but for fall of 2026, there will be. Technically, I think what they call it is a relaxing of the mandate or removal of the mandate of birth year. We could argue whether the mandate really had any power anyway or was more influential. But US soccer had a meeting, decided that doing it at this time is a little too short notice. Not going to mandate that it goes to school year, it sounds like Just going to remove a mandate that it goes to birth year, so people can do what they think is best.
Speaker 3: 33:03
They did a bunch of surveys on this and I think the short answer in the survey is that, you know, shockingly, people don't like change. That's one thing. So, even if they acknowledge the problems with birth year, there are people that just don't want to change because change bad. I guess you take that with a grain of salt. More people preferred school year than birth year. Majority of people say they have players being negatively impacted by the birth year age change.
Speaker 3: 33:28
One interesting thing that's come out of it is if going back to school year because, again, to make it very, very clear, what we expect is the mandate removed for the fall of 26. At that point most states determine school age by a cutoff of August 31, or September one or later. There's 50 states and there's there's some states that are, I think, as late as even October and how they calculate a school year. But there's more that are in that not 831, 91 cutoff than there are 81. And if the goal is to align more and more kids in grade level, I would think that that will become the more likely cutoff of September 1.
Speaker 4: 34:23
Not completely unexpected, right? Weren't sure what the timing kind of would be Not completely unexpected, so we will get into that deeper. On our next podcast We'll talk about it and how it may look and how it may be implemented and all those kinds of things.
Speaker 3: 34:42
One of the interesting parts just to say this and we'll talk about this in more detail, I'll have a guest on, I think, next podcast to talk about this is really kind of an acknowledgement that there is no developmental benefit for one or the other in terms of the cutoff itself. Makes a change in a player's trajectory, a player's ambition.
Speaker 3: 35:01
The level of play all of that stuff is is hogwash to put it scientifically, and that really this is about what people think is best for the player overall the biggest hurdle is disruption yeah and you know, I think we all understand because we've talked about it ad nauseum, but the disruption of listen the reason I say that is because you still have so many of these people who say, well, if you're, if you're aspiring to be a top level pro or a national team player, you have to play birth year. It's just complete garbage. Um, it has actually nothing to do with that. That's just an attempt to weaponize age groups.
I am suspicious about this latter assertion ("citation needed"). My kid is in 8th grade currently, and I have seen zero evidence of this across any of the three teams for his BY in his club over the last 3 years (ie: the entire middle school period). The kids on the teams enjoy playing with their teammates, some of whom are their classmates, some of whom are in various other schools, and none of whom are in any way socially excluded within the club training/playing context because of anything related to school year.
Maybe your club is different, but I have seen none of this, personally.
Yeah I can assure you it wouldn't go over well. ECNL teams would be at a significant disadvantage. They wouldn't enter Best of the Best at Surf Cup, for example, playing a year up. Surf Cup would see a massive drop in participation as a result.
I don't necessarily disagree with this, but playing with HS classmates and representing your school (with schoolmates coming to watch) is apples and oranges compared to playing with a few classmates on a rec or club light basis. There are so many variables when kids get to HS that I'm not sure we can claim the cutoff date is a significant factor.
Agree + this is exactly what I said would happen if there's differing rules around SY and if some leagues stayed BY.
Basically it would kill participation in local tournaments at u13 and above. Of which ECNL would take over with national events and showcases.
Keep in mind that events like Surf Cup or whatever local tournament are how local clubs make a significant amount of $$$. Take this away and we'll all end up paying more to clubs and ECNL will make much more $$$.
There is some talk US Club soccer may still go SY. If true, that would be easier since most tournaments and many leagues fall under their umbrella. This would be much cleaner compared to if only ECNL did it but not most leagues/tournaments remained BY. My hunch is it will be BY for all but just a guess for a parent who thinks their soccer educated but who knows the reality 
There is some talk US Club soccer may still go SY. If true, that would be easier since most tournaments and many leagues fall under their umbrella. This would be much cleaner compared to if only ECNL did it but not most leagues/tournaments remained BY. My hunch is it will be BY for all but just a guess for a parent who thinks their soccer educated but who knows the reality
The question is when? I have no doubts most leagues will switch to SY in 26/27, as it has an obvious advantage.
I feel like issues like this would "work themselves out" in the hypothetical scenario, as the saying goes. That is, it's not to say ECNL (and other leagues) would necessarily revert to BY, but rather that they would each decide how significant of a factor SY actually is (in terms of the various arguments put forth, such as playing with classmates, reducing "trapped player" instances, etc.). If those factor were more important to the parents than, for example, playing in specific tournaments (and assuming those tournaments didn't make allowances for SY based teams, although they probably would), then they would stick to SY. OTOH, if the other concerns were actually more important, they could switch back to BY, based on what their customers preferred.
Meanwhile, the rest of us could continue to play with our existing teams in the existing leagues, and nobody else would need to pay much attention to that drama. I don't personally care, for example; my kid is not going pro, and I just want the years of him playing soccer before going to college to be as enjoyable and drama/disruption free as possible.
If ECNL moves to SY, then all the ECNL teams/clubs will go SY, as most the matches they play are against other ECNL teams. Not doing SY, would put them at a disadvantage in league, showcase, and playoff instances. They will forego Surf Cup, and all the other national/local non-ECNL events. MLS Next won't bother going to those tournaments either as the only solid competition they will have is against other MLS Next clubs. That's something they get with MLS Next events (e.g., MLS Next Fest). I agree with @Carlsbad7 -- I think tournaments as we know them today will pewter out and more walled gardens will be formed. Personally I think either SY or BY needs to mandated. I don't really care which one, but this ambiguity is going to have a bigger impact than what most are thinking.
If it happens, it would be for Fall 25 but that's a massive decision to go against US soccer. I know the main us club leagues are ready to do this so weren't happy with US soccer's release. I still think they will do it but as long as all of us club soccer did, it's doable since it would include all tournaments. Hopefully something final comes out soon after some meetings taking place.
The disadvantage from a 5 month offset isn’t enough to kill participation in local events.
Take a look at the schedule for Silver Lakes last week. The top ECNL teams were all playing up by 12 months, trying to find tough games. They’re not going to run and hide if they have to play up by 5 months.