When does winning matter?

Grace T. said:
I'm not sure this is really true. I'm sure there are great select teams out there, but when my son was starting out the extras/select teams they faced couldn't really keep up. United is a different story, but it's also contributed to the thining of Extras and select teams by picking off the cream of the talent.

The problem with the approach you suggest is that AYSO is under its own umbrella, insisting on its own philosophy and licensing, and so it's very hard to incorporate into the pyramid structure (which is why its started to tier itself). The other problem of course is an incentives one...the select coaches are in it for love of the game and personal glory, so there really isn't an incentive to do much more by the way of coach training. The club coaches are paid so there's some accountability there. Indeed, one of the problems United has identified is "accountability", in their words, of volunteer coaches....whether having some of them a little too focused on winning v development, or behavioral issues, or failure to take the required training. In Socal, this had led to United trainer's taking a more centralized one-club approach and taking away some independence from the local club DOCs.
Click to expand...
You are right that united is more what I am thinking.
United plays in the bronze tournaments by us. They do just fine. Last one I reffed, they came in 3rd and 4th out of 8.

Philosophy is a huge barrier. Why have united if everyone is equal? Some regions won't even touch it.

Did centralizing united coach training help, or is it too early to tell?
 
d. God you are stupid. College is the only reason the WNT is successful. It is also the only reason that makes financial sense for a family to spend so much time and money on their daughter’s soccer odyssey. There is no “distortion.” There is only the free market working in glorious splendor, with clubs making money and families paying for the benefit they are seeking - college opportunity.
[/QUOTE]
Investment in womens' college soccer is driven by Title IX, not by free market forces. It is more like welfare than capitalism.
 
Grace T. said:
I'm sure Mark Cuban, the Buss family and Robert Kraft would take exception to your characterization that all sports oligarchs are Russians and Middle Eastern princes.
Click to expand...
In addition to Kraft, better American examples would be the Kroenke Family and Malcom Glazer (or Lamar hunt in his prime). The first two actually play in that league of Russian Oligarchs, and do it well.
 
espola said:
Does anyone else notice he sudden reversal in philosophy and economic theory between items b and c?
Click to expand...

Sure. MLS exists in its current form because that is the only way that a free market allows for a sustainable league in the US. Solidarity payments don’t work because they do not make financial sense. They also artificially restrict mobility of labor. There is no inconsistency. The market has determined that a pro soccer league can only work here if it is structured the way it is. The market has also determined that solidarity payments and transfer fees don’t work because they restrict the flow of labor.

it is so weird. I’m arguing what actually exists in a free market, while you are arguing that fantasyland is what works in a free market. To prove that I am right and you are wrong, all I need to point out what is actually happening.

Where the dumb people get lost is in their thinking that MLS distorts “the market” because they can’t see that “the market” is not soccer. The “market” is pro sports. MLS is competing with MLB, NFL, etc. The MLS structure is the only system that allows a pro soccer league to compete in a sustainable manner with other pro sports leagues for consumer dollars.
 
Yak said:
d. God you are stupid. College is the only reason the WNT is successful. It is also the only reason that makes financial sense for a family to spend so much time and money on their daughter’s soccer odyssey. There is no “distortion.” There is only the free market working in glorious splendor, with clubs making money and families paying for the benefit they are seeking - college opportunity.

Investment in womens' college soccer is driven by Title IX, not by free market forces. It is more like welfare than capitalism.
Click to expand...

I was waiting for someone to finally bring that up. Congratulations, you are smarter than most of the people here, but still wrong.

Title IX is a government “restriction”, like anti-trust and equal employment opportunity laws. So, yes, you might consider it a restriction on capitalism, but really it is a restriction on capitalism that actually benefits a free market. You see, capitalism and a free market are not the same thing. Capitalism, for example, begets monopolies, but monopolies are also anathema to a free market.

The purpose of the law is actually to promote a free market by prohibiting behavior that gets in the way of it over the long term. Note that Title IX isn’t a sports law. It is a law that requires equal opportunity for women in higher education, and equal sports opportunities happens to be one of the means of accomplishing that. When you look at the law in its full context, instead of losing the forest among the trees by ignoring all of the law besides the one part you want to talk about, there can be no question that Title IX has accomplished its goal of opening up free markets by increasing the number of women who were previously excluded from college opportunities and the labor force without it. Just like a law prohibiting monopolies is good for a free market, and just as laws requiring that companies treat minorities the same as others, Title IX is good for a free market.
 
EOTL said:
I was waiting for someone to finally bring that up. Congratulations, you are smarter than most of the people here, but still wrong.

Title IX is a government “restriction”, like anti-trust and equal employment opportunity laws. So, yes, you might consider it a restriction on capitalism, but really it is a restriction on capitalism that actually benefits a free market. You see, capitalism and a free market are not the same thing. Capitalism, for example, begets monopolies, but monopolies are also anathema to a free market.

The purpose of the law is actually to promote a free market by prohibiting behavior that gets in the way of it over the long term. Note that Title IX isn’t a sports law. It is a law that requires equal opportunity for women in higher education, and equal sports opportunities happens to be one of the means of accomplishing that. When you look at the law in its full context, instead of losing the forest among the trees by ignoring all of the law besides the one part you want to talk about, there can be no question that Title IX has accomplished its goal of opening up free markets by increasing the number of women who were previously excluded from college opportunities and the labor force without it. Just like a law prohibiting monopolies is good for a free market, and just as laws requiring that companies treat minorities the same as others, Title IX is good for a free market.
Click to expand...

I should also add that calling Title IX more like welfare than capitalism is a pretty ridiculous and offensive thing to say. You think equal opportunity is “welfare”? You think capitalism is a legitimate excuse to discriminate against people based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc?
 
EOTL said:
I was waiting for someone to finally bring that up. Congratulations, you are smarter than most of the people here, but still wrong.

Title IX is a government “restriction”, like anti-trust and equal employment opportunity laws. So, yes, you might consider it a restriction on capitalism, but really it is a restriction on capitalism that actually benefits a free market. You see, capitalism and a free market are not the same thing. Capitalism, for example, begets monopolies, but monopolies are also anathema to a free market.

The purpose of the law is actually to promote a free market by prohibiting behavior that gets in the way of it over the long term. Note that Title IX isn’t a sports law. It is a law that requires equal opportunity for women in higher education, and equal sports opportunities happens to be one of the means of accomplishing that. When you look at the law in its full context, instead of losing the forest among the trees by ignoring all of the law besides the one part you want to talk about, there can be no question that Title IX has accomplished its goal of opening up free markets by increasing the number of women who were previously excluded from college opportunities and the labor force without it. Just like a law prohibiting monopolies is good for a free market, and just as laws requiring that companies treat minorities the same as others, Title IX is good for a free market.
Click to expand...

Monopolies are not prohibited. Using a monopoly position to unfairly compete in the open market or to take advantage of consumers is prohibited.
 
Dos Equis said:
In addition to Kraft, better American examples would be the Kroenke Family and Malcom Glazer (or Lamar hunt in his prime). The first two actually play in that league of Russian Oligarchs, and do it well.
Click to expand...

Except none of them lose money. Yes, they lose money in the short term while their investment in ownership skyrockets. But only a Russian oligarch is willing and able to throw money into a sports team without regard to whether they will benefit financially in the end. And it is the latter that @Grace T. is using as her business model. Plus, have you ever seen even a Russian oligarch throw away hundreds of millions to essentially create a sports league without regard to long term appreciation, rather than buy into one that already exists?

Glazer is also the worst possible example for you. He bought ManU by burdening the club with massive debt, and any debt for the first time since 1931. This allowed him to burden the club while at the same time minimizing his risk and allowing him to pull money out of the club for his own benefit. He essentially mortgaged ManU to maximize his personal profit from it.
 
espola said:
Monopolies are not prohibited. Using a monopoly position to unfairly compete in the open market or to take advantage of consumers is prohibited.
Click to expand...

Just as using racism and misogyny are also unfair and anathema to a free market.
 
EOTL said:
I should also add that calling Title IX more like welfare than capitalism is a pretty ridiculous and offensive thing to say. You think equal opportunity is “welfare”? You think capitalism is a legitimate excuse to discriminate against people based on gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, etc?
Click to expand...
Not at all. It is quite right that women and men compete on equal terms in academic and professional life, but that is not the case with sports, so it's a special case.

I don't even object to how Title IX supports womens' soccer. Just think it's silly to pretend that it's free enterprise at work.
 
EOTL said:
Sure. MLS exists in its current form because that is the only way that a free market allows for a sustainable league in the US. Solidarity payments don’t work because they do not make financial sense. They also artificially restrict mobility of labor. There is no inconsistency. The market has determined that a pro soccer league can only work here if it is structured the way it is. The market has also determined that solidarity payments and transfer fees don’t work because they restrict the flow of labor.

it is so weird. I’m arguing what actually exists in a free market, while you are arguing that fantasyland is what works in a free market. To prove that I am right and you are wrong, all I need to point out what is actually happening.

Where the dumb people get lost is in their thinking that MLS distorts “the market” because they can’t see that “the market” is not soccer. The “market” is pro sports. MLS is competing with MLB, NFL, etc. The MLS structure is the only system that allows a pro soccer league to compete in a sustainable manner with other pro sports leagues for consumer dollars.
Click to expand...
Pfffft. The free market has nothing to do with solidarity payments existing or not existing.

In Europe, such payments have the support of the legal system and are legally enforceable. Over there, they get paid.

In the US, solidarity payments do not have the support of the legal system and are not legally enforceable. Here, they do not get paid.

The difference is the legal system, not the “free market.“
 
To me it is 13-16 years old. If you are not winning at this point you are not getting into the big tournaments that get scouted for by colleges which is most important at 17-18 Winning At 17-18 is less important As the most important part is being there to be seen because the college coaches don’t care if your team wins when they recruit.
 
espola said:
Utilities (where monopolies make practical sense) are tightly regulated, although some still figure out ways to cheat the public.
Click to expand...
"tightly regulated". By govt employees trying to get jobs with the very company/industry they are regulating. See Bernie Madoff and wall st. circa 2008.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top