Is club soccer a waste of time/money for youngers (under 10 yo)?

[crush]

I use the word generally because there are definitely exceptions. There are a few excellent strikers, but definitely not "all", who are also excellent defenders.

Soccer is fun because there's more to it than just athleticism. The biggest, fastest, strongest players don't always end up successful. There's decision making, calmness, quickness, agility, peripheral vision, planning, communication, grit and hard work.

I sense some Striker Envy Emma, no?

 

[paytoplay]

Parents intimately involved in their kids level of play (vs the clubs or teams defining) is the rub with American Youth Soccer + actually any youth sport in the US.

I know of multiple situations where parents have just given up on playing the social games needed sometimes to get on or play with XYZ club. If you're new to the situation what you don't see is that there's all kinds of ways exploit the situation. Coaches, Parents, and Clubs are all doing it at the same time. This is why we as a nation can't field a good national team on the mens side. Focus is 60% playing and 40% everything else that goes along with getting on XYZ team to get noticed. In other countries parent influence doesn't exist. Players get thrown into the club meat grinder + talent rises to the top.

Agree with this.

And the original question: if “club soccer is really necessary or even the best route for developmental purposes at the younger ages?”

Club is necessary for one reason: that’s where the players are. Not in rec. Not playing (free) pick up ball at the local rec center or loosely organized on the streets and beaches. The players, resources, and time is all locked up in the Pay to Play Club System. And the club is the gatekeeper—no pay, no play. The clubs have hijacked the youth sport in USA.
You can argue what value the clubs bring to developing our youth players, but my opinion is that clubs are a parasite. It’s the players individually, their interaction with each other, and mom and dad’s money buying private training and access that develop the player. It’s unfortunate. There are better systems out there, but this is our hell.

 

[espola]

I use the word generally because there are definitely exceptions. There are a few excellent strikers, but definitely not "all", who are also excellent defenders.

Soccer is fun because there's more to it than just athleticism. The biggest, fastest, strongest players don't always end up successful. There's decision making, calmness, quickness, agility, peripheral vision, planning, communication, grit and hard work.

I have seen this from the opposite perspective when I was coaching indoor teams in a league where every player has minimum playing time. If I had to put in a weak player, I put him up front where he couldn't hurt us.

 

[Emma]

I have seen this from the opposite perspective when I was coaching indoor teams in a league where every player has minimum playing time. If I had to put in a weak player, I put him up front where he couldn't hurt us.

I've seen a lot of this but a lot of parents think their kid must be excellent if they're playing the 9. I'm just referring to excellent strikers, not players who can't/won't defend at all or make very bad decisions such as pass back to the goalie when there are 2 very fast forwards pressing the goalie.

 

[crush]

Agree with this.

And the original question: if “club soccer is really necessary or even the best route for developmental purposes at the younger ages?”

Club is necessary for one reason: that’s where the players are. Not in rec. Not playing (free) pick up ball at the local rec center or loosely organized on the streets and beaches. The players, resources, and time is all locked up in the Pay to Play Club System. And the club is the gatekeeper—no pay, no play. The clubs have hijacked the youth sport in USA.
You can argue what value the clubs bring to developing our youth players, but my opinion is that clubs are a parasite. It’s the players individually, their interaction with each other, and mom and dad’s money buying private training and access that develop the player. It’s unfortunate. There are better systems out there, but this is our hell.

You just nailed it!!!!

 

[crush]

I have seen this from the opposite perspective when I was coaching indoor teams in a league where every player has minimum playing time. If I had to put in a weak player, I put him up front where he couldn't hurt us.

But was he fast? Damn you soccer coaches are harsh. What really happens is the coaches lie ((not all) and they tell the parent they can develop a "weak" player as you call them coach. "If you do privates with me, you will not be weak." I see what Emma is trying to say. The slow big players have to play defense and go for jump balls and get hurt. The fast players like my dd got all the goals and the glory that came with it. If you had to get a "weak" player in the game like the GDA did with the 25%ters, then you put those players up top. I get it, trust me and that is what the coaches did now that I think about it. No "weak" player ever went on defense.

 

[Grace T.]

Agree with this.

And the original question: if “club soccer is really necessary or even the best route for developmental purposes at the younger ages?”

Club is necessary for one reason: that’s where the players are. Not in rec. Not playing (free) pick up ball at the local rec center or loosely organized on the streets and beaches. The players, resources, and time is all locked up in the Pay to Play Club System. And the club is the gatekeeper—no pay, no play. The clubs have hijacked the youth sport in USA.
You can argue what value the clubs bring to developing our youth players, but my opinion is that clubs are a parasite. It’s the players individually, their interaction with each other, and mom and dad’s money buying private training and access that develop the player. It’s unfortunate. There are better systems out there, but this is our hell.

Your anger is misplaced. Club and pay to play is not the villain in all this. It is just a symptom. The real problem is the college admissions systems which distorts everything else. Club soccer is just a business which developed to get players looks and to get players better training opportunities than were offered in the old AYSO system. From there it's a prisoner's dilemma, because if little Billy is doing club soccer and little Danny is only doing AYSO, little Danny doesn't have the opportunity to get the college looks which may or may not develop in the future, because the college coaches only bother to look at the top tiers.

It's not just limited to soccer because otherwise Kumon, Mathnaseum, and CLC wouldn't exist. You wouldn't have the band and debate competitive culture. You wouldn't have cheer camp, band camp and dance camp. You wouldn't have the Lori Loughlin's of the world cheating on SATs and trying to get fake college commitments. You wouldn't have all the top students in high school running around trying to make fake charities. What's worse is its inequitable because it's the upper middle class that has the money to spend on club sports and activities...the rich can always buy a building or use their influence....and the poor don't have the resources to keep up and struggle to even drive to the activities. It's also why there's the huge drop off in soccer participation. Because as kids advance in age, for many they realize they don't have the drive or the talent to make the top tier, so they focus their energies on other things as they get older where they can made a splash (even if it's just their social lives).

If you want to change the system, direct your anger to what the colleges have set up. It bleeds into other aspects of our society, which are directly and indirectly related to the "meritocracy" we built up and the way we built it.

 

[crush]

I have seen this from the opposite perspective when I was coaching indoor teams in a league where every player has minimum playing time. If I had to put in a weak player, I put him up front where he couldn't hurt us.

How do you define a "weak" player coach espola? I can't imagine bringing my son to you for evaluation to make your team but I figure I should ask. Do you look at dad's car he drives and the bumper stickers? Check Social Media account first to determine who is weak and who is strong player? My dd had a coach that took her from a Striker to #11 and it made her the player she is today. She can use her left and I thank him for that. Yes, she scored less goals but the team won it all. One Arsenal coach told her coach right in front me, of how impressed he was of how much my dd game changed with playing possession and is now a well rounded stud. He had no idea I was her dad and I was full of pride. He walked away and then coach told me how proud he was of my dd accomplishments the last 18 months and she will get what she deserves. No one did what she did in three years. No one!!!

 

[jojon]

Your anger is misplaced. Club and pay to play is not the villain in all this. It is just a symptom. The real problem is the college admissions systems which distorts everything else. Club soccer is just a business which developed to get players looks and to get players better training opportunities than were offered in the old AYSO system. From there it's a prisoner's dilemma, because if little Billy is doing club soccer and little Danny is only doing AYSO, little Danny doesn't have the opportunity to get the college looks which may or may not develop in the future, because the college coaches only bother to look at the top tiers.

It's not just limited to soccer because otherwise Kumon, Mathnaseum, and CLC wouldn't exist. You wouldn't have the band and debate competitive culture. You wouldn't have cheer camp, band camp and dance camp. You wouldn't have the Lori Loughlin's of the world cheating on SATs and trying to get fake college commitments. You wouldn't have all the top students in high school running around trying to make fake charities. What's worse is its inequitable because it's the upper middle class that has the money to spend on club sports and activities...the rich can always buy a building or use their influence....and the poor don't have the resources to keep up and struggle to even drive to the activities. It's also why there's the huge drop off in soccer participation. Because as kids advance in age, for many they realize they don't have the drive or the talent to make the top tier, so they focus their energies on other things as they get older where they can made a splash (even if it's just their social lives).

If you want to change the system, direct your anger to what the colleges have set up. It bleeds into other aspects of our society, which are directly and indirectly related to the "meritocracy" we built up and the way we built it.

I see that a lot of parents on this forum is so fixated on college admission. From that perspective, I can see your point. However, I think majority of parents are just trying to maximize their child's potential, whatever it is.
It is very likely that even if soccer does not exist in college sport, soccer clubs would still exist.

 

[jojon]

Agree with this.

And the original question: if “club soccer is really necessary or even the best route for developmental purposes at the younger ages?”

Club is necessary for one reason: that’s where the players are. Not in rec. Not playing (free) pick up ball at the local rec center or loosely organized on the streets and beaches. The players, resources, and time is all locked up in the Pay to Play Club System. And the club is the gatekeeper—no pay, no play. The clubs have hijacked the youth sport in USA.
You can argue what value the clubs bring to developing our youth players, but my opinion is that clubs are a parasite. It’s the players individually, their interaction with each other, and mom and dad’s money buying private training and access that develop the player. It’s unfortunate. There are better systems out there, but this is our hell.

Good argument. All soccer players (who really "can" and "want" to play) join club systems, thus we have no other options.
I do not see a subsidized, competitive, organized youth sport can exist in this country. If football/basketball/baseball cannot do it, then it is almost impossible for soccer to lead the way.

 

[Grace T.]

I see that a lot of parents on this forum is so fixated on college admission. From that perspective, I can see your point. However, I think majority of parents are just trying to maximize their child's potential, whatever it is.
It is very likely that even if soccer does not exist in college sport, soccer clubs would still exist.

We know what would happen because we have a model: Europe. In Europe colleges offer the bare minimum by way of amenities (since the state often pays for a large chunk of the tuition, the state insists on the colleges being streamlined for costs). European universities have sports teams, but they are general intramural level competition and done just for fun (not tied into the academic system or admissions). In Europe, there are general 3 levels of soccer play: the academies which are ruthless in their tracking (and once you are off the academic track, its very difficult to get back on) and develop professional soccer players; a small pay to play system which consists largely of players either cut off the academy track (and trying to get back on) or players trying to make their way onto the academy track; and everyone else plays rec (which, unlike the old AYSO, is tiered in multiple levels).

So yes, if college soccer did not exist, it is likely soccer clubs would exist but like in Europe, the entire operation would be smaller (similar to what we had in the 1970s when only the really exceptional kids would play club soccer). The problem with "maximize their childs potential" is that once there is a distortion in the system, it impacts everyone, whether they are aiming for college admissions or merely to "maximize their child's potential". Because once some people take off on intensive specialization, to "maximize potential" you'll have to play the game to keep up, even if the end goal isn't college (which in the end as they get older for a ton of kids turns out just not to be worth it, leading to the drop off in numbers the closer you get to senior year of high school).

 

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

I thought this thread was done but didn't realize it came back to life. I'm sure others have chimed in already but:

1) Are there really big skill gaps between Flights? or is it more about team organization/strategy/aggressiveness?

Others may disagree with me but I think there's a massive gap between flights. Flight 3 I'd say is just above recreational. My kid's team is a decent (but clearly not the best) flight 1 team and they played a couple of flight 2 teams recently and it was 15-1 and 13-2 or something like that.

A typical flight 1 team is a mix of big fast athletic kids + smaller kids who are really good with the ball vs their peers.

2) I think all of these teams belong to Socal, maybe coast soccer league or other leagues have better level definition?

CSL used to have some excellent teams and maybe they still do but a lot of the CSL teams have recently moved over to SoCal League. SoCal League is far from perfect but in terms of organization, competition, and structure, I don't think there's really an alternative in LA/OC/SD area.

3) Also confused with the jargon of some coaches/clubs saying about path to higher level like ECNL, MLSnext, Discovery. How many level are there? 8?

I wouldn't worry about that too much if first year in club. But basically for girls if you want to play in the highest level of competition, you want to be in ECNL and for boys it's MLSNext. Up for debate and knowing US Soccer structure, this could change by the time I finish typing.

Cost wise, I did my math and in the past already spent about $1200 annually for soccer activities, the clubs have been offering $1800-$2400 annual fee (including referee fee and 2 tournaments according to the contract). I think additional $100/month is not bad considering that YMCA after school charge me $500/month for staying at school 2-6pm with no "real" activities.

I think $3000 is a good estimate for an annual cost of club at your 11 yo. If you want to be safe, estimate $3500 in your head + possibly hotel/travel if there are out of town tournaments.

No aspirations to be pro or getting scholarship but I do think joining competition at an appropriate level of one's skill always beneficial to children's general education.
I used to play youth soccer in another country, another time but cannot relate with this environment at all, totally overwhelmed.

I bet the other country did it better
On behalf of all Americans, I apologize for our youth soccer structure.
And yes I agree, I think playing the appropriate level is beneficial to kids not just soccer or sports wise but mentally.
Good luck and have fun!

 

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

This parent’s opinion is that size doesn’t and shouldn’t matter and was pressing me to explain more. Of course, he has a bigger kid. I’m thinking sure, easy for you to say. Your kid doesn’t have someone at least 5-7 inches taller and 50 pounds heavier going after him. He did concede that the top teams seem to be filled with bigger kids and size can mean more attention from coaches and being tracked earlier.

lol of course size matters for youth.
We aren't talking about prime Barca where Xavi Messi Iniesta carved up defenses like a Thanksgiving turkey.
For youth and especially pre-puberty, size plays a HUGE role.
You're just able to win so many more 50/50 balls.

 

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

Why Can't USSOCCER just approve a league for each tier per geographic region? If private investor wants to create separate league/tournament then it is fine but at least there is one "approved/sanctioned" league like Division 1,2,3 in pro soccer.

One of mysteries of life.

But as someone great once said, the answer to most pressing questions in life are usually "MONEY".

 

[crush]

We need some MASA, Make American Soccer Awesome!!!

 

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

I disagree. Strikers are the most athletic kids. They can play any position and be successful.

I could get along with the first part that they're athletic. Hard disagree with the 2nd part though that they can play any position.
This isn't even possible at the highest pro levels. Benzema wouldn't be able to play a creative midfielder.

And certainly isn't the case at the youth level. It's magnitudes worse if the athletic striker currently depends on size and speed and is told to play center mid and receive the ball and turn and dribble and distribute the ball.

[Edit to say: I'm not saying a talented athletic kid couldn't play any position... I'm sure he or she could if they put in the work since they're already bigger, faster, more athletic vs their peers... But I'm saying if a kid is dominating as a forward because of his physical prowess and drop him into other positions where that's not highlighted as much as the striker position, he might not be as successful]

 

[Socal-Soccer-Dad]

You pretty much just need to run fast and have a reasonable shot.

This is it 100% for the youngers in the youth level.

Now if you're talking false 9 or something more complex, then yeah you need to be more competent.

Let's not crown any 9 yo strikers in SoCal League as the next Harry Kane

 

[jojon]

We know what would happen because we have a model: Europe. In Europe colleges offer the bare minimum by way of amenities (since the state often pays for a large chunk of the tuition, the state insists on the colleges being streamlined for costs). European universities have sports teams, but they are general intramural level competition and done just for fun (not tied into the academic system or admissions). In Europe, there are general 3 levels of soccer play: the academies which are ruthless in their tracking (and once you are off the academic track, its very difficult to get back on) and develop professional soccer players; a small pay to play system which consists largely of players either cut off the academy track (and trying to get back on) or players trying to make their way onto the academy track; and everyone else plays rec (which, unlike the old AYSO, is tiered in multiple levels).

So yes, if college soccer did not exist, it is likely soccer clubs would exist but like in Europe, the entire operation would be smaller (similar to what we had in the 1970s when only the really exceptional kids would play club soccer). The problem with "maximize their childs potential" is that once there is a distortion in the system, it impacts everyone, whether they are aiming for college admissions or merely to "maximize their child's potential". Because once some people take off on intensive specialization, to "maximize potential" you'll have to play the game to keep up, even if the end goal isn't college (which in the end as they get older for a ton of kids turns out just not to be worth it, leading to the drop off in numbers the closer you get to senior year of high school).

Right on. Tiered AYSO, this is what we need. Aside from elite athletes, this is what most players (and parents) want. The organization is powerful enough to do it. Hopefully they will do it one day.

 

[Grace T.]

Right on. Tiered AYSO, this is what we need. Aside from elite athletes, this is what most players (and parents) want. The organization is powerful enough to do it. Hopefully they will do it one day.

They tried. The first step is they got the handicapable kids their own league, VIP so those kids could play too. They also have All Stars, Extras and United for kids that want a longer and more advanced system. I personally love that AYSO made the effort to get tiered and we loved the Extras program. The issue, though, with United is that AYSO felt it couldn't launch it's own club league to compete with the other club leagues, so AYSO United Teams play club ball with the other teams in club leagues (and do very well in league play because they have a large pool of athletes from which to pick). The good of that is they can offer a club experience that is generally more affordable than other clubs. But while AYSO has made an effort to really get volunteer and daddy coaches a good education (and their educational materials are beyond fantastic), the educational materials don't always overcome a culture which is more obsessed with winning than developing soccer skills....the teams I've had experience with have a distinct little league experience and my son's worst soccer experience was with an AYSO United coach (see above). The issue right now is that AYSO United (because it doesn't have an MLS/ENCL pathway) is cut off from the highest levels of soccer (which are migrating on the boys end to MLS/ENCL on the highest pathway, and EA for the secondary). AYSO United was one of the driving forces in some areas behind the new Elite 64, but until they have a true integrated tier experience (from MLS Next to VIP) it will be difficult. And the only way to do that is if they surrender some of their authority to the other US Soccer entities (which they haven't been willing to do because jobs, turf, and philosophy are at stake). The everyone plays philosophy is also just a plain philosophical block to a truly tiered system (in Spain for example rec has 8 tiers).

 

[paytoplay]

I see that a lot of parents on this forum is so fixated on college admission. From that perspective, I can see your point. However, I think majority of parents are just trying to maximize their child's potential, whatever it is.
It is very likely that even if soccer does not exist in college sport, soccer clubs would still exist.

Is college admission competition among parents the reason we have corrupt pay to play soccer? Does it explain the gatekeeping and hijacking by the clubs? I don’t know.
But I have never had a conversation about soccer with my kid that was about using soccer to get into college. I think she plays soccer because she’s competitive, good at it, makes her feel good. And every step of the way, from the playground to rec soccer to club to flight 1, was always her wanting to play with and against good players. Watching heroes like Alex Morgan or Messi on tv compete and succeed is a bigger draw. We’ve not watched any college games.
When the kid’s team was not on par with her, she wanted to accept the challenge and put in the hard work, and move up to a more competitive team. The kid was trying to set goals and realize potential to the utmost. If we had to pay, we did. We could see she was giving 100%.
I see a lot of top flight teams practicing, doing drills not invented by the club, doing rondo not invented by the club, scrimmaging! Scrimmaging above all else. The actual games are 90 minutes of players competing against other players, there’s no club coach in there sweating with them, no club coach tearing their acl or getting carried off the field. All the hard work is being done by these kids. Tell me again: what does a DOC do? Ten years into this and I’m still not sure.