Burn bridges? In other words, the gatekeepers have massive egos. They will resort to cancel culture if not shown the proper respect by the player’s parent or guardian. If the parent dares to say something on the internet, or if the parent’s name comes up in a conversation somewhere, that player will be punished on the field. Got it. The hard work is actually done by the highly skilled coaches and not the players risking acl tears or balancing school work with their athletics. Understood. So, pay to play soccer exists for the benefit of the club and not really for any player development. That’s what I thought. Thanks for the club perspective. It really lets us know what is important.
Women's CONCACAF World Cup Qualifying
- Thread starter kickingandscreaming
- Start date
Yes. England was gritty enough to come back and finish. Spain showed they are creative and intelligent, but are not there yet.
yeah I think the home crowd helped England , and certainly Spain sat back the last 30 or so absorbing pressure, dam broke so to speak
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
Yes, the USWNT has been dominant. That doesn't mean it can't be better. Failing to look at potential challenges and weaknesses has been the downfall of dominant teams, companies, and empires throughout history. It also makes for interesting board discussions.
Your point that the soccer culture in a given country (Spain) may be significantly different for girls versus boys is a good one, but I contend that is more specific to the general cultural approach to girls' and boys' sports, which is part of the USA's advantage of being relatively more progressive in girls' sports. If so, this advantage will continue to wane unless opportunities for girls in sports do not grow in other countries as they have in the USA.
Also, your contention that the USWNT excelled due to superior athleticism, strength, and speed is an advantage that would be expected to shrink as well unless US women are somehow at a much higher relative world standing in those traits than US men.
Relative participation is the only advantage I see for the girls versus the boys in the US. Training is no better, and there is a bias toward the boys at the higher levels due to financial incentives. I'm not buying that this is the only difference that separates the relative rankings of the best National Team in the world (USWNT) and the USMNT.
Defining a good soccer culture is subjective. I'd say we will have a good one in the US when pickup games of various skill levels are as consistently available at local parks as pickup basketball games. This type of culture would solve more "underachieving" than anything else we could do and would be relatively cheap. I don't think much of the idea that some National Team level soccer players are being missed due to "pay-to-play". However, I believe the lack of opportunities to get out and play with other youngsters drives the underrepresentation of girls in lower socio-economic areas. I am confident that if an 8-year-old player were tearing it up at her local park, word would get out, and a club would come calling. Unfortunately, culture doesn't change particularly fast. We could certainly use one or two USWNT stars from these areas to light the fire of participation.
You talk so much about why pay-to-play is so bad. Instead, why don't you tell us how we can eliminate pay-to-play, including your thoughts on:
- Whether coaches should ever be paid, and if so, where the money will come from?
- Whether fields should be built or maintained, and if so, where will the money come from?
- Whether leagues should be formed, or clubs for that matter, and if so, who will pay for the administrators?
What fields did the clubs build?? What pockets built the Great Park?
The formation of the clubs is parasitical. They feed off the work of the athletes. Your player might have a great coach, but I guarantee you her friend who plays for another club has an idiot for a coach. Organization is required, of course. But, we’re talking about soccer—you couldn’t design a sport better suited to minimalism. Instead, the club system introduces: travel!, expensive kits, dipshit coaches, literal pay to play, blackballing, etc. How would we be worse off if the players were still in some kind of tiered recreational system like AYSO? Especially in Southern California, why is it even necessary to travel 10 miles, let alone travel to AZ to find competition? What a wasteful system! You know it’s going to get worse too. I’m sure these guys will dream up some real doozies! That’s just like my opinion, man.
GoldenGate
GOLD
"Cancel culture" is nothing more than a fancy term used by people who don't want to be held accountable for their inappropriate behavior. Parents like you and crush complain incessantly and do nothing but criticize others, but you expect that there should be no repercussions.
You are nuts if you think pay to play exists "for the benefit of the club and not really for any player development". Pay to play exists because soccer costs what it costs. And the USofA has done pretty well for itself in terms of player development, better than every other country in the world. It has done so well, in fact, that it has won the last two WCs and was unlucky not to have won three.
GoldenGate
GOLD
There is no monolithic "system" of youth soccer in the US. You live in the only country in the world that has every conceivable price point and level of youth soccer for girls. There is absolutely nothing stopping your kid from playing AYSO, or school soccer, or inexpensive comp, or pickup games in the park if you're too cheap to pay for training from professionals.
outside!
DA
"Monolithic?", No, but there is a fragmented system that has a lot of unnecessary travel costs because of that fragmentation. Many people would like to participate but do not have the means. That does not mean they are cheap.
Pretty pathetic game on both sides.
USA got lots of just-missed shots.
It might be comforting to youth players and their coaches that even at the highest levels players will, after having worked the ball up the field with skill and teamwork, lob a softie right into the keeper's hands.
GoldenGate
GOLD
Yes, many people do not have the means to pay for what elite soccer costs. They also don't have the means to pay for equestrian lessons. Or piano lessons. Or SAT prep. Or Ferraris. The fact that certain avenues of youth soccer are closed to people who lack the resources to pay for them has nothing to do with youth soccer, let alone suggest that youth soccer is broken or "too expensive". Why is it that people think things should cost what they cost for everything but soccer? Is youth soccer so important compared to any other activity that skilled and valuable coaches should just do it for free? Those with control over field space should give it away for free? People who run youth soccer clubs are "greedy" because they expect to be paid to run a business?
ECNL has just the right amount of travel for those who choose to participate in it. AYSO has just the right amount of travel for those who choose to participate. HS has just the right amount of travel for those who choose to participate. We know that because they continue to exist. We also know GDA did not have the right amount of travel because it collapsed largely because of the travel costs. You call it "fragmentation", but the appropriate word is "options".
That is not an answer; it is just more ranting. Somebody has to pay for coaches, field fees and administration. Who, in your opinion, should have to pay these fees if not the parents of the players? You're the guy who objects to "pay-to-play." What is your solution?
GoldenGate
GOLD
The answer is always the same from anti "pay to play" people: anyone but them. The government should pay. Youth soccer coaches should pay by giving up their time and ability to earn a living and coach kids for free. Youth club admins should pay by giving up their time and ability to earn a living to run these clubs for free. Land owners should love soccer so much that they let everyone use field space for free instead of making money from it. Other parents should pay by foregoing their ability to use their financial resources to leverage their daughter's athletic ability into college opportunity. Instead, they should accept less qualified cheaper coaches, less qualified skilled teammates, and lower quality games against less skilled opponents.
Good work. Youcan comprehend the part about my objection to pay-to-play
I hate it. The clubs have hijacked the sport. Rentseekers. They add little value and are annoying. More salesman than mentor. For every decent coach, 10 more that suck. Those schmucks should be run out of town.It’s the players themselves that are the value—their hard work, their learning from each other, paying for private training and private coaching, and their luck of both inheriting good genes and family support. The athletes pre-dated the clubs, contrary to what you think.
The solution is obviously to return to the era before the rise of the clubs. Elite players and useful coaches will gravitate to each other, with the incentive of seeing who’s best. To a large degree, they will develop each other. Health of the club won’t be an incentive. They won’t exist. It won’t be free soccer, but compared to now, play will be accessible, affordable and local. We may not get there, the world often ignores obvious solutions to problems. But, can the current system sustain itself? I hope something happens to disrupt it. I will be rooting for that.
Since the USA is not a socialist country, maybe the solution is not looking at other successful youth soccer systems, although I would prefer we do what Spain and France are doing. (I say, “not socialist,” except for the taxpayer-subsidized fields and public schools and colleges.) But, if I were a billionaire, I would create a superclub and drive the clubs out of business just for the satisfaction. That’s my dream.
Taxpayers of Irvine continue to pay for every soccer field and every improvement at the Great Park. Would be interesting if they started charging for the full price, instead of practically giving it away for free. And the school districts should do the same.
GoldenGate
GOLD
Good work. Youcan comprehend the part about my objection to pay-to-play
It’s the players themselves that are the value—their hard work, their learning from each other, paying for private training and private coaching, and their luck of both inheriting good genes and family support. The athletes pre-dated the clubs, contrary to what you think.
The solution is obviously to return to the era before the rise of the clubs. Elite players and useful coaches will gravitate to each other, with the incentive of seeing who’s best. To a large degree, they will develop each other. Health of the club won’t be an incentive. They won’t exist. It won’t be free soccer, but compared to now, play will be accessible, affordable and local. We may not get there, the world often ignores obvious solutions to problems. But, can the current system sustain itself? I hope something happens to disrupt it. I will be rooting for that.
Since the USA is not a socialist country, maybe the solution is not looking at other successful youth soccer systems, although I would prefer we do what Spain and France are doing. (I say, “not socialist,” except for the taxpayer-subsidized fields and public schools and colleges.) But, if I were a billionaire, I would create a superclub and drive the clubs out of business just for the satisfaction. That’s my dream.
A 13 year old girl who can kick a soccer ball has zero value no matter how much you claim otherwise. Their ability to kick a soccer ball is worthless to others. Someone who can help that player develop to the point that they can leverage their ability into Stanford or UCLA, however, is incredibly valuable and deserves to be paid accordingly. You are clueless.
I love people like you who live a fantasy that girls youth soccer is so great in countries like Spain and France. The truth is you have no clue what things are actually like there. You don't know the first thing about the actual opportunities and options a girl has in either of those countries. You have no idea what levels of soccer are available to kids in those countries, let alone how much they cost. You can't identify a single coach in either of those countries who does a great job developing players, let alone one who is better at it than Baker or Deza who are in your backyard. You have no clue that a youth academy like Malaga FC charges kids 20,000 euros for a 10 month season, and at Alacante it is 1900 euros a month. You conveniently ignore that Spain and France have systems that drive virtually every teenage girl out of the sport by the time they're 18 years old, and that 99.99 percent of them cannot leverage their ability to play soccer into anything at all, whereas there are 40,000 American girls right now playing collegiately. You have no idea that a 16 year old girl in Marseille who wants to play soccer for fun doesn't even have a pathway to do that in most circumstances, unlike in the U.S. Did you know that there are maybe twenty 20 year old Spanish women who play soccer competitively, while there are 10,000 American women? You have no clue that the very few who do decide to follow the dream must give up everything, education, work experience, all of it, while 40,000 American women right now get to follow their dream of playing soccer and get an education at the same time.
outside!
DA
I thought the point of this discussion was to find ways to improve US soccer. The fragmentation I am referring to is the many upper level leagues that cause local teams to travel and prevent them from playing one another. These leagues also dilute the talent. All of these leagues exist due to a lack of non-corrupt leadership from US Soccer and their primary purpose is to funnel dollars to the leagues, not to make better soccer players. No more than 1 or 2 SoCal teams per age group should ever have a reason to travel out of SoCal. Since the vast majority of games are played at facilities funded by the taxpayers, we should be able to demand some efficiency.