The Hidden Problem Killing U.S. Soccer: Are Tournaments to Blame?

[Anonymous]

You are just mad because we are suckers to pay the fees we pay. It's cheaper to save money for college tuition.

[Anonymous]

It’s the US cult of the athlete and the people willing to pay money to be part of it, even if it’s only through their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.

There were more kids trying out for soccer at our high school by far than any other sport. It's popular enough. It's just that the rest of the world has no other sport of consequence.

LOL 😆..
The rest of the world only competes in soccer at the Olympics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue

It's kind of true though. We have non-soccer leagues topping the chart. Other countries are all dominated by their pro soccer league, except for a couple outliers like Indian circket and Aussie rules. Basketball is the only apparent growing threat to soccer in some of countries, to the extent those sports are competing for revenue and players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.

Except those other sports aren’t compared to development results in other countries. Comparing the US development model for soccer to other countries shows how broken it is. There is no comparison for the NFL. There are only a few countries that play baseball and most of those the end goal is to get to MLB. Basketball is getting bigger outside of the US but still not many countries really care about it. Plus they all use drafts and don’t develop their own players.

Our professional teams are few, poor, and spread out too far. Our national organization is disorganized and doesn’t care to really get involved in the youth game for organization and oversight. The pay to play model doesn’t reward individual player development or incentivize coaches to push players to the highest level - it looks more to a cycle of recruiting and winning to keep getting paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.

Except those other sports aren’t compared to development results in other countries. Comparing the US development model for soccer to other countries shows how broken it is. There is no comparison for the NFL. There are only a few countries that play baseball and most of those the end goal is to get to MLB. Basketball is getting bigger outside of the US but still not many countries really care about it. Plus they all use drafts and don’t develop their own players.

Our professional teams are few, poor, and spread out too far. Our national organization is disorganized and doesn’t care to really get involved in the youth game for organization and oversight. The pay to play model doesn’t reward individual player development or incentivize coaches to push players to the highest level - it looks more to a cycle of recruiting and winning to keep getting paid.

Basketball has shifted to the point where more and more of the top players are coming from overseas. US basketball development is as broken as US soccer development.

[Anonymous]

^ and the top college basketball players only stay for 1 year of college before heading Pro—-like Cooper Flagg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its against the rules of this forum to just post a link without any elaboration

OP did that. It is against the preference of the site’s owner to just put a link.

[Anonymous]

I think the initial point of the video is that tournaments are expensive and wear out the older kids is true. It happens in other sports too and there's some good articles on Private equity companies buying up all the cheer leading tournaments and jacking up prices.

I know my older kids who've play 11v11 are dead after a tournament and the whole team has a limp for a day or 2. Part of that is the coach not bringing in other kids from the clubs lower teams to help out and the desire to play the top players longer to win.

But US soccer is doing fine. It could be better but the men's national team is perfectly mediocre and the women's team is the best 1 or 2 in the world. The level of play in the MLS could certainly improve but it's really our 5th major sporting league. Imagine some of the NFL wide-receivers and defensive backs had played soccer growing up? Travis Hunter would have been Messi if he was kicking a ball instead of catching it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tournaments that are just showcases have changed soccer maybe not ruined it ... when was the last tournament a U15+ team played in that they played for a championship? These kids are starting these showcase type tournaments as young as u12 and the ones that don't even have a championship is what is changing the landscape of competitiveness. same with pool play. Bracket them up and let the teams feel real pressure in competition again. understanding how to hold a lead late in the game so you can advance, not just end the game in a tie or be ok with a tie because it is pool play. it's not runinig soccer - but it's putting the players in continued less competitive situations. i know it's not all about winning, but winning isn't a bad thing. it teaches players how to deal with stress of a tight game as and how to keep a lead and play wiht a lead or come from behind. i know those same things can happen in a showcase or pool play, but ask your kid the difference ... my DD has told me she loves the competitiveness of that type of tournament over a showcase any day.

I had to backtrack with my own daughter on the "it's about development more than winning" philosophy. Her club liked to say it, and I repeated it to her. But she really seemed to not care about the result, just whether she played well. This led to her playing her position well, but without much creativity, and no one was making good runs out of their position. After she was green-lit to care about the win or loss (I simply told her it's OK to hate losing and to take pride in winning, and that it will motivate her to raise her soccer IQ, which in part is how to problem-solve to win), she looks like such a better player in the span of two months. She makes noticeably better tactical decisions and looks far more fearless. I've come to really believe that the message about development needs to be carefully tailored to let the kids have a competitive fire, especially on the girls side.

She didn't care about development until you told her to stop focusing on development?

[Anonymous]

Lack of free play is killing youth soccer. Parents would rather pay cone drill kings than have their kid plays play pickup with their friends in a 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 format.

[Anonymous]

I don’t find soccer in the US to be ideal, but it is not bad comparatively. Considering there are 211 countries in FIFA and US men are ranked 16 and women are ranked 1, are we really that bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lack of free play is killing youth soccer. Parents would rather pay cone drill kings than have their kid plays play pickup with their friends in a 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 format.

trust me I'd love that - it just doesn't exist. Kids are over scheduled and don't just hang out at the local park (and btw most of those kids strong enough play with are towns away). Even mixing AGs, it's just not part of our current culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.

Except those other sports aren’t compared to development results in other countries. Comparing the US development model for soccer to other countries shows how broken it is. There is no comparison for the NFL. There are only a few countries that play baseball and most of those the end goal is to get to MLB. Basketball is getting bigger outside of the US but still not many countries really care about it. Plus they all use drafts and don’t develop their own players.

Our professional teams are few, poor, and spread out too far. Our national organization is disorganized and doesn’t care to really get involved in the youth game for organization and oversight. The pay to play model doesn’t reward individual player development or incentivize coaches to push players to the highest level - it looks more to a cycle of recruiting and winning to keep getting paid.

I agree but you are missing the point. It’s pay to play not because someone thought it would be a better development model, but because there isn’t another source to fund it because professional soccer doesn’t have enough money to fund it here because it’s not popular enough. If it were more popular there would be more money which would attract better coaches and athletes. Pay to play is a fine development model which could still turn out globally competitive players like it does in other sports here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ and the top college basketball players only stay for 1 year of college before heading Pro—-like Cooper Flagg.

"One and done" has been around for nearly 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of these arguments end up at the same place. Soccer in the US is the way it is because it's just not very popular compared with other mainstream sports. Every single one of the so called "problems" also exist in the popular sports but aren't "ruining" them. Excessive travel? Check. Big revenue tournaments? Check. As long as soccer doesn't generate the kind of revenue that football, baseball, basketball do, these dynamics will remain.

Except those other sports aren’t compared to development results in other countries. Comparing the US development model for soccer to other countries shows how broken it is. There is no comparison for the NFL. There are only a few countries that play baseball and most of those the end goal is to get to MLB. Basketball is getting bigger outside of the US but still not many countries really care about it. Plus they all use drafts and don’t develop their own players.

Our professional teams are few, poor, and spread out too far. Our national organization is disorganized and doesn’t care to really get involved in the youth game for organization and oversight. The pay to play model doesn’t reward individual player development or incentivize coaches to push players to the highest level - it looks more to a cycle of recruiting and winning to keep getting paid.

I agree but you are missing the point. It’s pay to play not because someone thought it would be a better development model, but because there isn’t another source to fund it because professional soccer doesn’t have enough money to fund it here because it’s not popular enough. If it were more popular there would be more money which would attract better coaches and athletes. Pay to play is a fine development model which could still turn out globally competitive players like it does in other sports here.

You could still have a “pay” model administered by the national federation. Some structure, oversight, curriculum, established pathways, incentives for coaches to develop players and push them up. A national structure with clear “National travel” teams, “Regional travel”, and “local travel”, a spoke and wheel design with geographical local clubs feeding regional, regional feeding National. Coaches hired and overseen by the national federation so coaches are placed and paid based on ability, not recruiting and instagram. It would not be without hurdles, but it could be done and would be a massive improvement.