I agree with you on coaching, but the pay to play system is unique to the United States and a handful of other countries like China. In Europe, the truly elite, both boys and girls, play academy ball. The system has its own horrors including using kids and then throwing them away when they are off the academic track, but pay to play is not one of them. Everyone else plays tiered rec, and while it can also be described loosely as "pay to play", fees are more akin to AYSO than our pay to play system and most of the coaches are volunteers. The pay to play system developed in the US because of a handful of factors including: a) it's function, like other club sports, is to create college athletes and not professionals...Europe doesn't have a collegiate athletic system in the same way we do...it's more like intramural sports; b) the lack of knowledgeable coaches (hence all the British and Latin American imports); c) AYSO's reluctance to tier, and d) the dearth of fields that were available in the United States for the longest time and which remain a problem (interestingly Latin America does not have that problem, as there are fields everywhere, but Europe does outside of the UK....The European answer to the problem was futsal and small sided games up until the really late ages, in Spain as late as 14).
Wynalda Perspective on US Soccer
- Thread starter watfly
- Start date
DennisBergkamp
BRONZE
The truly elite yes, but they have a huge base of people paying to play to support that.
Most clubs in europe have recreational programs that support the competition teams.
The smaller sided games (like Futsal but not only) are not an answer to having or not fields, they are an answer to "how can we better develop players".
It is common in Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and so on to have multiple ages in the same field working at the same time. Difference is, most fields are Synthetic to be able to deal with the amount of "work" and as well the weather. Usually, even on the best clubs, the grass fields are used for the first team with a few exceptions. It is not the norm. And the clubs own the fields.
Most clubs in europe have recreational programs that support the competition teams.
The smaller sided games (like Futsal but not only) are not an answer to having or not fields, they are an answer to "how can we better develop players".
It is common in Spain, Portugal, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and so on to have multiple ages in the same field working at the same time. Difference is, most fields are Synthetic to be able to deal with the amount of "work" and as well the weather. Usually, even on the best clubs, the grass fields are used for the first team with a few exceptions. It is not the norm. And the clubs own the fields.
I was actually thinking more of field space for rec, training or just pickup games. My son once spent three summers looking for pickup games in Spain, France and Italy. He couldn't find them because the fields were locked up and you aren't allowed to play in the public parks. As you point out, they are owned by the clubs or cities and usually fenced off. By contrast, in Guatemala and Mexico there are plenty of kids messing around in the open fields, some of them dirt only. I'd argue the smaller sided games are a function of this. Because in Spain, for example, the schools don't even have such dirt fields, instead what they do is they have the equivalent of concrete basketball courts which they use for futsal.
While the clubs in Europe do make some money with camps and events most of their funding comes from selling the players they develop. Pay-to-play won't end in the US until the clubs are allowed to sign and sell players.
Looking at the GA Cup MLS academies tournament, it's pretty clear the US academy boys were able to hang in there with the international invites including Real Madrid. The US boys academies are probably generally on par with the European B level academies such as Sevilla and Valencia. None of the games were blown outs and Real Madrid got knocked out of the u15 tournament in the quarters. The issue isn't at the youth level. It's that transition level out of youth and into adult. There's too few opportunities for talent to play in Europe (partially due to immigration issues), too few are offered the chance to actually play in the MLS, and too many of the academy kids are on the college as opposed to the pro track. I agree part of the issue is that the clubs can't develop and sell players. But another issue is there isn't pro/rel. There aren't any lower level MLS teams for these players to cut their teeth on, and the higher level teams because of the salary caps don't offer tempting enough salaries for the players to aspire to. College is too limited of a season and poor training to develop a pros so once they are off to college, you essentially lose any chance to really develop that talent. If US Soccer is really concerned about developing world class talent, they need to fix the MLS system and provide opportunities for those transitioning out of youth.
whatithink
GOLD
I thought the route is MLS Next (youth) > MLS Next Pro (2nd teams) > MLS. If you look like you could make it, you get a run with MLS Next Pro and if you exceed some bar, then you can get signed to that level. If not, then college ball or bust ...
You also have USL Premier, L1 & L2, so its starting to expand.
The MLS closed league is a fundamental problem with developing a healthy soccer culture & infrastructure, although changing that will not drive youth development into the pros, it's more likely to have the opposite effect as owners/coaches are not going to chance a youth prospect when the downside is relegation. Bizarrely, the MLS closed system should incentivize, to some extent, teams to promote/develop youth players as there is no fear of relegation.
The number of academy kids that make it in the pro leagues in Europe is tiny. Making an academy at a young age gives you a minimal advantage. Some large clubs use academies to generate money to make them self funding and obv. hope to get some players.
Alternatively, you can build a team if you "require" yourself to restrict your choice ... Athletic Club Bilbao being a stellar example.
If that were the case the la Galaxy’s brief 1 year flirtation with academy players should have been a rip roaring success. Instead they reverted to their usual model: 1 major dp, supporting cast of internationals, round it out with bargain veterans. The Galaxy certainly couldn’t do worse with academy players than they are doing so far this year with their standard model. When everyone is set up at parity because of spending caps, the small differences make an impact and no one wants to be like the la Galaxy.
by contrast if the mls were like the premiere league we’d have 4-6 clubs with the finance to build world class teams. Academy players would not likely play for these teams but they’d be on par with Sevilla, Milan and west ham. Your analysis also applies to the middle of the field looking to ensure against relegation. But the issue with the bottom third as well as the relegation league is that some owners simply don’t want to spend the money to avoid relegation or get promotion. It allows the top teams to sell their academy players to these teams who are looking for a bargain and to moneyball it. It creates playtime at the bottom which nevertheless get to play against athletes from the top 6 teams.
Consider this. 25% of admitted undergraduates students at Harvard every year are Division 1 recruited athletes.
You look at the top schools such as Stanford, UCLA, and the stats are similar.
A division 1 athlete with good grades can write their ticket to schools that similar students with just good grades can't get in.
I agree if you aren't good then it wouldn't help college missions. Do something else instead of sports.
Remember the varsity blues controversy. Parents were paying thousands to have their kids pose as fake athletes to get into USC and Stanford.
whatithink
GOLD
Not really on the Galaxy flirtation. Following an academy-oriented approach for your first team isn't a one season wonder. Ajax are an obvious example in Europe and they hit the jackpot sometimes, but the rest they compete. There's no guarantee that your academy products are going to be first team capable, and in reality the empirical evidence would state that the overwhelming majority of academy products will never play in top leagues, never mind top teams in top leagues.
For sure on the top teams building better teams than anyone else - doubtful if any would be world class mind as the money is not there. (and I get there are billionaire owners, but they are not going to spend mega bucks on an MLS team when they could buy a team in Europe and spend their instead if they wanted to waste their money).
I think you misunderstand. Those 25% of athletes are on the athletic recruited route. The athletic and arts recruits are handled through a different procedure, a different pool, than regular academic admits (there are rumors BTW that some schools have separate consideration pools/procedures for the big mega donors....we aren't just talking legacies here....the people who donate buildings). Those athletic and arts recruits do not get handled in the same way the academic recruits are. Indeed, if there are alumni interviews, not all alumni are allowed to interview them because of fear of running afoul of NCAA regs (such as buying them a cup of coffee or something stupid like "would you like something") so usually it goes to a staffer, a coordinator, a trusted alumni or an alumni who has taken some extra training.
If you are going the recruited route, of course it makes sense to pursue higher level athletics. The point was if you are going the regular academic route, high level athletics give you very little bang for your buck. The issue is, however, that many athletes (particularly on the boys side outside of the MLS academies) find that they may not be able to get into Stanford or UCLA that way, and may instead wind up in Ohio and St. Louis.
You were right about Harvard with 1222 athletes. 7100 undergraduates. But it should be noted that graduate students also play D1 sports. Not sure how the money works with them since they only give out need based money.
For some perspective:
UCLA has 881 athletes. 32000 undergraduates. Average $18,000 in sports student aid per year.
Stanford has 862 athletes. 7700 undergraduates. Average $28,932 in sports student aid per year.
Cal State Fullerton has 449 athletes. 35000 undergraduates. Average $8,500 in sports student aid per year.
The more relevant comparison dollar wise would be to look at net cost per athlete. While Stanford gives over 3x more in aid than CSF, it is probably still more expensive on a net basis. Of course, that doesn't account for the perceived value of a Stanford education.
Cal State who? CSF had some of the best pick up basketball in the 80s bro, second only to the days when Pauly Pavilion had the best summer action. Cedric tried to bring me to ball in Westwood and be his personal PG but I just wasn't good enough.
Yes you are correct. CSF costs 31K less 8.5, gives net of 22.5K. UCLA comes in at 43K less 18K giving us 25K. Stanford at 79K less 29K is still 50K. All these based on living on campus.