Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
CleansheetDad wrote:
westsidesoccer wrote:
You may think it is irrelevant to your son that ECNL allows for top play for both girls and boys, but you would by wrong. Clubs must have both their boys and girls teams in the ECNL National league to be a member. This is one reason why Arlington is in ECNL and not in MLSNext.
If this is true, why does Bethesda play boys in MLS Next and girls in ECNL? They have no participation in ECNL on the boys side.
They don't have any boys in ECNL. That appears to be the difference.
The previous poster said that you must play ECNL across the board. My point was questioning that by saying Bethesda splits leagues between genders.
I believe the situation is as follows.
1. ECNL would like all member clubs to enter only top teams into ECNL leagues.
2. ECNL would like clubs to have both boys and girls top teams in ECNL.
3. Historically these policies either did not exist, or were not enforced. Consequently a number of clubs are not in compliance with these rules.
4. Both (1) and (2) have been enforced for new league applicants for a few years now (basically since the big shakeup which followed the end of the DA) and in some cases a carrot and stick approach has been used. For example Arlington was promised girls' ECNL as a carrot for moving the boys to ECNL. They were then later told that they would lose girls' ECNL if they subsequently moved the top boys' teams to MLS Next.
5. It appears that ECDNL have now laid down the law on (1), and required clubs to remove boys' second teams from ECNL.
6. It does not appear that they have yet laid down the law to clubs who have entered their girls' teams in ECNL and their boys' teams in MLS Next. I suspect they will not do this either - as it would likely rebound and the consequences would hurt ECNL more than help. Still - something to watch out for.