Reflections from an aging soccer dad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are there any solutions to this? Almost every parent I know hates what has happened to youth sports and all feel powerless to fix it. Is there any way to take back youth sports and make them a beneficial part of growing up instead of a out of control tornado of wasted money and time spent traveling for kid games?

create a new club or new league

[Anonymous]

There are many options in youth soccer and enough to tailor a program to the needs of your DC. Ignore the herd mentality and do your homework. Focus on what is important and when it is important. There is no need to jump into travel at the most competitive club at U8. Find a good coach who is focused on the player. Wins should not drive your decision. At u14, begin focusing on the coaches/clubs ability to prepare players for college/elite level soccer. Don't get caught up in the brand but recognize that the brand exists because the clubs are doing something right.

[Anonymous]

OP, thanks for a great post.

If you could go back and do it all again, what, if anything, would you change?

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how this is a great post. This is an over-simplified mediocre post at best that restates the obvious. OPs post is just the intro to 08:25s post that is really the great post of this thread (not me btw)

Nothing in our area has decreased in cost in the last decade, why would expect an organized leisure activity to go down that can basically continue to increase rates every year to supposedly differentiate with coaches, programs and activities.

Are we expecting a significant amount of new clubs/teams to appear in the DMV so that you aren't running into old competitors 10 years later? If so, why? the authorities responsible for organizing structure and constraint don't foster that, to include county support for fields and the expense of private complexes.

There is so much to address, I can't do it justice, but given that youth soccer participation in the US is decreasing, I would expect that we'll continue to see the rat race that is competitive soccer and all the good and bad that goes along with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how this is a great post. This is an over-simplified mediocre post at best that restates the obvious. OPs post is just the intro to 08:25s post that is really the great post of this thread (not me btw)

Nothing in our area has decreased in cost in the last decade, why would expect an organized leisure activity to go down that can basically continue to increase rates every year to supposedly differentiate with coaches, programs and activities.

Are we expecting a significant amount of new clubs/teams to appear in the DMV so that you aren't running into old competitors 10 years later? If so, why? the authorities responsible for organizing structure and constraint don't foster that, to include county support for fields and the expense of private complexes.

There is so much to address, I can't do it justice, but given that youth soccer participation in the US is decreasing, I would expect that we'll continue to see the rat race that is competitive soccer and all the good and bad that goes along with it.

I don't have a source, but it seems all youth sports are seeing decreases. I wonder if it is -- in part -- due to the fact that sports competition has become less fun. Even if costs, which keep many families out, were kept the same year over year, I think the number playing is shrinking.

[Anonymous]

Interesting report by the Aspen Institute on participation in youth sports.

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2018/10/StateofPlay2018_v4WEB_2-FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.107651328.32617992.1553087167-828947673.1553087167

A couple of interesting observations. The age change (i.e. kids lost friends on their teams) and the pay-to-play model is hurting youth soccer. There are also more choices now with Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, Volleyball, etc. picking up more participants on a percentage basis, albeit all still low compared to soccer. Video games / technology as an alternative pastime is also having some effect. I also found the discussion on youth coaches with training by sport interesting. Even though there is pay-to-play, not sure people are getting what they're paying for.

Here are some direct sections from the report:

"Soccer paid a heavy price for underestimating kids’ desire to play with friends. In an effort to develop better prospects for its national teams, the U.S. Soccer Federation two years ago began mandating that affiliated organizations down to the community level stop forming teams based on birthdates that fell within the school year. Instead, teams at every age level were reorganized based on calendar year birthdates, in which kids are less likely to play with same-grade peers. That broke up teams who have been playing together for years. Only 14.8 percent of children ages 6 to 12 played soccer in 2017, down from 17 percent in 2015.2 For children ages 6 to 17, soccer had the highest churn rate in 2017 among sports evaluated by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) — meaning 19.2 percent of youth returned to soccer or started playing, but 25.2 percent of youth who used to play soccer left the game."

"New study showed how few Virginia kids are served by the pay-to-play soccer model. George Mason University researcher Tyler Richardett created a project called 'Hidden Costs: Exploring Access to Youth Soccer in Virginia.' Using data from competitive youth soccer league schedules, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the clubs themselves, the project showed that children living in the southwest and southside regions of Virginia are “completely excluded” from the competitive pipeline and would require a 'massive' time commitment in order to play. Economic security was an effective predictor of opportunities for inclusion. Opportunities disappeared entirely once an area of Virginia’s nonwhite population exceeded 90 percent. The study also showed that the amount of required travel significantly increased as the competition level rose."

"Most youth coaches are still winging it. The percentage of adults trained in key competencies to engage kids remains stubbornly low, even as the value of having a trained coach has generally grown in the broader culture. The latest SFIA survey shows that less than four in 10 youth coaches say they are trained in any of the following areas: sport skills and tactics, effective motivational technique, or safety needs (CPR/basic first aid and concussion management). Many barriers exist to training the nation’s 6.5 million youth coaches, most of whom are volunteers."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting report by the Aspen Institute on participation in youth sports.

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2018/10/StateofPlay2018_v4WEB_2-FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.107651328.32617992.1553087167-828947673.1553087167

A couple of interesting observations. The age change (i.e. kids lost friends on their teams) and the pay-to-play model is hurting youth soccer. There are also more choices now with Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, Volleyball, etc. picking up more participants on a percentage basis, albeit all still low compared to soccer. Video games / technology as an alternative pastime is also having some effect. I also found the discussion on youth coaches with training by sport interesting. Even though there is pay-to-play, not sure people are getting what they're paying for.

Here are some direct sections from the report:

"Soccer paid a heavy price for underestimating kids’ desire to play with friends. In an effort to develop better prospects for its national teams, the U.S. Soccer Federation two years ago began mandating that affiliated organizations down to the community level stop forming teams based on birthdates that fell within the school year. Instead, teams at every age level were reorganized based on calendar year birthdates, in which kids are less likely to play with same-grade peers. That broke up teams who have been playing together for years. Only 14.8 percent of children ages 6 to 12 played soccer in 2017, down from 17 percent in 2015.2 For children ages 6 to 17, soccer had the highest churn rate in 2017 among sports evaluated by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) — meaning 19.2 percent of youth returned to soccer or started playing, but 25.2 percent of youth who used to play soccer left the game."

"New study showed how few Virginia kids are served by the pay-to-play soccer model. George Mason University researcher Tyler Richardett created a project called 'Hidden Costs: Exploring Access to Youth Soccer in Virginia.' Using data from competitive youth soccer league schedules, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the clubs themselves, the project showed that children living in the southwest and southside regions of Virginia are “completely excluded” from the competitive pipeline and would require a 'massive' time commitment in order to play. Economic security was an effective predictor of opportunities for inclusion. Opportunities disappeared entirely once an area of Virginia’s nonwhite population exceeded 90 percent. The study also showed that the amount of required travel significantly increased as the competition level rose."

"Most youth coaches are still winging it. The percentage of adults trained in key competencies to engage kids remains stubbornly low, even as the value of having a trained coach has generally grown in the broader culture. The latest SFIA survey shows that less than four in 10 youth coaches say they are trained in any of the following areas: sport skills and tactics, effective motivational technique, or safety needs (CPR/basic first aid and concussion management). Many barriers exist to training the nation’s 6.5 million youth coaches, most of whom are volunteers."

A couple of interesting observations. The age change (i.e. kids lost friends on their teams) and the pay-to-play model is hurting youth soccer. There are also more choices now with Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, Volleyball, etc. picking up more participants on a percentage basis, albeit all still low compared to soccer. Video games / technology as an alternative pastime is also having some effect. I also found the discussion on youth coaches with training by sport interesting. Even though there is pay-to-play, not sure people are getting what they're paying for.

None of those three sports are at all cheap.

Hockey uses Birth Year.

Volleyball uses school year but one league provides a handy calculator to help parents figure out what age group to tryout for. http://www.premiervolleyball.org/AgeDivCalc.php

Lacrosse uses combined age groups so playing with the same group of friends is never a guarantee.

South western VA is cutoff from a lot more things than just soccer. Rural areas are never afforded the same access to services as their urban counterpart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting report by the Aspen Institute on participation in youth sports.

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2018/10/StateofPlay2018_v4WEB_2-FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.107651328.32617992.1553087167-828947673.1553087167

A couple of interesting observations. The age change (i.e. kids lost friends on their teams) and the pay-to-play model is hurting youth soccer. There are also more choices now with Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, Volleyball, etc. picking up more participants on a percentage basis, albeit all still low compared to soccer. Video games / technology as an alternative pastime is also having some effect. I also found the discussion on youth coaches with training by sport interesting. Even though there is pay-to-play, not sure people are getting what they're paying for.

Here are some direct sections from the report:

"Soccer paid a heavy price for underestimating kids’ desire to play with friends. In an effort to develop better prospects for its national teams, the U.S. Soccer Federation two years ago began mandating that affiliated organizations down to the community level stop forming teams based on birthdates that fell within the school year. Instead, teams at every age level were reorganized based on calendar year birthdates, in which kids are less likely to play with same-grade peers. That broke up teams who have been playing together for years. Only 14.8 percent of children ages 6 to 12 played soccer in 2017, down from 17 percent in 2015.2 For children ages 6 to 17, soccer had the highest churn rate in 2017 among sports evaluated by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) — meaning 19.2 percent of youth returned to soccer or started playing, but 25.2 percent of youth who used to play soccer left the game."

"New study showed how few Virginia kids are served by the pay-to-play soccer model. George Mason University researcher Tyler Richardett created a project called 'Hidden Costs: Exploring Access to Youth Soccer in Virginia.' Using data from competitive youth soccer league schedules, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the clubs themselves, the project showed that children living in the southwest and southside regions of Virginia are “completely excluded” from the competitive pipeline and would require a 'massive' time commitment in order to play. Economic security was an effective predictor of opportunities for inclusion. Opportunities disappeared entirely once an area of Virginia’s nonwhite population exceeded 90 percent. The study also showed that the amount of required travel significantly increased as the competition level rose."

"Most youth coaches are still winging it. The percentage of adults trained in key competencies to engage kids remains stubbornly low, even as the value of having a trained coach has generally grown in the broader culture. The latest SFIA survey shows that less than four in 10 youth coaches say they are trained in any of the following areas: sport skills and tactics, effective motivational technique, or safety needs (CPR/basic first aid and concussion management). Many barriers exist to training the nation’s 6.5 million youth coaches, most of whom are volunteers."

This was a killer. The kids from our rec team moving into travel in 2nd/3rd grade were split up into different years---U9 and U10. It massively sucked. My oldest was a December 2005 and the year it took effect he bumped from U10 into U12. All but 2 kids on his travel team that had played U9&U10 together were also 2005s, the rest were 2006s. This was a very tight knit group. The year above was a very 'exclusionary, snotty' bunch of kids so the 2005s having to move up were miserable. We ended up switching Clubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son is aging out of youth travel soccer this year, and as I look around, I realize the same game keeps getting played on parents, over and over again. I was making a list the other day with my son on how many different leagues he'd played in, all of which we were told was where the 'best' players and coaches were.

DA
EDP
Super Y
CCL
ERL
National League

and now Boys ECNL.

Every single one of those leagues was sold to us (parents and player) as being the best, the future, the place a club and player needed to be. It's literally close to one new 'have to be in it' league per year over the last 10 years. Each one had clubs clamoring to be a founding club in the DMV, and each one was either abandoned or became a backwater within a couple years of its founding. At every iteration, the costs got a little higher, the travel commitment went up, and the need to be in Disney or Dallas or wherever for a tournament went from yearly to almost quarterly.

Just look at the DA - clubs were killing each other to get the designation, some clubs lost their Academy status locally, then the whole pre-Academy thing for the U12's, and now - poof, everyone over to Boys ECNL. I am so glad to be leaving this chaotic environment. It has become clear to me over time that all of this re-organizing and coming and going of leagues really has nothing to do with developing kids and everything to do with more money and less accountability for coaches and clubs.

The amazing thing to me as I look at my son's schedule for the spring it has the same teams that were in NCSL Division 1 when he was U10!

I thought this was going to be a good post, but you really lost me there.

Everyone over to the boys ECNL? No offense but wtf are you talking about?

He is probably talking about Loudoun boys' program that went from NCSL to CCL to DA to ECNL. McLean had a roughly similar path.

BRYC, Mclean, Maryland, Celtic are all now in Boys ECNL. Loudoun next year, probably more that will be announced this spring. A lot of these clubs are also starting to pull away (more than they have already) from USYS leagues - State Cup, etc. MLS talking about leaving the DA. ECNL requires that your 'best team' be playing in ECNL - just like DA and CCL did before.

I suspect Arlington will move soon too, says a little bird.

Interesting! Is your source knowledgeable of the situation or you know someone at the club organization level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting report by the Aspen Institute on participation in youth sports.

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2018/10/StateofPlay2018_v4WEB_2-FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.107651328.32617992.1553087167-828947673.1553087167

A couple of interesting observations. The age change (i.e. kids lost friends on their teams) and the pay-to-play model is hurting youth soccer. There are also more choices now with Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, Volleyball, etc. picking up more participants on a percentage basis, albeit all still low compared to soccer. Video games / technology as an alternative pastime is also having some effect. I also found the discussion on youth coaches with training by sport interesting. Even though there is pay-to-play, not sure people are getting what they're paying for.

Here are some direct sections from the report:

"Soccer paid a heavy price for underestimating kids’ desire to play with friends. In an effort to develop better prospects for its national teams, the U.S. Soccer Federation two years ago began mandating that affiliated organizations down to the community level stop forming teams based on birthdates that fell within the school year. Instead, teams at every age level were reorganized based on calendar year birthdates, in which kids are less likely to play with same-grade peers. That broke up teams who have been playing together for years. Only 14.8 percent of children ages 6 to 12 played soccer in 2017, down from 17 percent in 2015.2 For children ages 6 to 17, soccer had the highest churn rate in 2017 among sports evaluated by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) — meaning 19.2 percent of youth returned to soccer or started playing, but 25.2 percent of youth who used to play soccer left the game."

"New study showed how few Virginia kids are served by the pay-to-play soccer model. George Mason University researcher Tyler Richardett created a project called 'Hidden Costs: Exploring Access to Youth Soccer in Virginia.' Using data from competitive youth soccer league schedules, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the clubs themselves, the project showed that children living in the southwest and southside regions of Virginia are “completely excluded” from the competitive pipeline and would require a 'massive' time commitment in order to play. Economic security was an effective predictor of opportunities for inclusion. Opportunities disappeared entirely once an area of Virginia’s nonwhite population exceeded 90 percent. The study also showed that the amount of required travel significantly increased as the competition level rose."

"Most youth coaches are still winging it. The percentage of adults trained in key competencies to engage kids remains stubbornly low, even as the value of having a trained coach has generally grown in the broader culture. The latest SFIA survey shows that less than four in 10 youth coaches say they are trained in any of the following areas: sport skills and tactics, effective motivational technique, or safety needs (CPR/basic first aid and concussion management). Many barriers exist to training the nation’s 6.5 million youth coaches, most of whom are volunteers."

This was a killer. The kids from our rec team moving into travel in 2nd/3rd grade were split up into different years---U9 and U10. It massively sucked. My oldest was a December 2005 and the year it took effect he bumped from U10 into U12. All but 2 kids on his travel team that had played U9&U10 together were also 2005s, the rest were 2006s. This was a very tight knit group. The year above was a very 'exclusionary, snotty' bunch of kids so the 2005s having to move up were miserable. We ended up switching Clubs.

But going forward with kids who never knew the difference it won't make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting report by the Aspen Institute on participation in youth sports.

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2018/10/StateofPlay2018_v4WEB_2-FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.107651328.32617992.1553087167-828947673.1553087167

A couple of interesting observations. The age change (i.e. kids lost friends on their teams) and the pay-to-play model is hurting youth soccer. There are also more choices now with Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, Volleyball, etc. picking up more participants on a percentage basis, albeit all still low compared to soccer. Video games / technology as an alternative pastime is also having some effect. I also found the discussion on youth coaches with training by sport interesting. Even though there is pay-to-play, not sure people are getting what they're paying for.

Here are some direct sections from the report:

"Soccer paid a heavy price for underestimating kids’ desire to play with friends. In an effort to develop better prospects for its national teams, the U.S. Soccer Federation two years ago began mandating that affiliated organizations down to the community level stop forming teams based on birthdates that fell within the school year. Instead, teams at every age level were reorganized based on calendar year birthdates, in which kids are less likely to play with same-grade peers. That broke up teams who have been playing together for years. Only 14.8 percent of children ages 6 to 12 played soccer in 2017, down from 17 percent in 2015.2 For children ages 6 to 17, soccer had the highest churn rate in 2017 among sports evaluated by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) — meaning 19.2 percent of youth returned to soccer or started playing, but 25.2 percent of youth who used to play soccer left the game."

"New study showed how few Virginia kids are served by the pay-to-play soccer model. George Mason University researcher Tyler Richardett created a project called 'Hidden Costs: Exploring Access to Youth Soccer in Virginia.' Using data from competitive youth soccer league schedules, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the clubs themselves, the project showed that children living in the southwest and southside regions of Virginia are “completely excluded” from the competitive pipeline and would require a 'massive' time commitment in order to play. Economic security was an effective predictor of opportunities for inclusion. Opportunities disappeared entirely once an area of Virginia’s nonwhite population exceeded 90 percent. The study also showed that the amount of required travel significantly increased as the competition level rose."

"Most youth coaches are still winging it. The percentage of adults trained in key competencies to engage kids remains stubbornly low, even as the value of having a trained coach has generally grown in the broader culture. The latest SFIA survey shows that less than four in 10 youth coaches say they are trained in any of the following areas: sport skills and tactics, effective motivational technique, or safety needs (CPR/basic first aid and concussion management). Many barriers exist to training the nation’s 6.5 million youth coaches, most of whom are volunteers."

This was a killer. The kids from our rec team moving into travel in 2nd/3rd grade were split up into different years---U9 and U10. It massively sucked. My oldest was a December 2005 and the year it took effect he bumped from U10 into U12. All but 2 kids on his travel team that had played U9&U10 together were also 2005s, the rest were 2006s. This was a very tight knit group. The year above was a very 'exclusionary, snotty' bunch of kids so the 2005s having to move up were miserable. We ended up switching Clubs.

But going forward with kids who never knew the difference it won't make a difference.

They will split out from their rec friends when they all get to travel and it forces kids into travel too young. Now you have 1st graders trying out to start their U9 year in 2nd grade. They know in this area they have to get in the pipeline at big Clubs even when the parents feel it's too early for their kid. It is a clusterf*ck and you have kids not ready for 90min 3X a week practices nearly year-round and missing friend's bday parties in 2nd grade because of this 'commitment'. Burnout is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are many options in youth soccer and enough to tailor a program to the needs of your DC. Ignore the herd mentality and do your homework. Focus on what is important and when it is important. There is no need to jump into travel at the most competitive club at U8. Find a good coach who is focused on the player. Wins should not drive your decision. At u14, begin focusing on the coaches/clubs ability to prepare players for college/elite level soccer. Don't get caught up in the brand but recognize that the brand exists because the clubs are doing something right.

+1 And if you are unsure how to do your homework and become an educated soccer parent, start by asking questions of parents whose kids play in a way you admire or whose older kids have had outcomes you'd like to see your kids achieve. You will often find that particular coaches and trainers have a strong track record of developing players and helping them get into good college programs or the pros. Seek them out and join the community of players and parents that follow them around.

I would add that no one should take any club's statements about the superiority of a particular league at face value, and you should also stay away from parents that complain a lot or are cynical (which means you should ignore a significant percentage of the posts on DCUM).

[Anonymous]

PP - I agree and have seen the impact these issues on my kids.

To me, the model of "you are only on the team for a year and we re-evaluate every Spring" is stupid and makes kids and coaches disengage. There is no incentive to develop kids and no club commitment to their well being, at least for the vast majority of players who are not the top 5% of the talent pool on a real pathway to the top. For those tip-top kids, fine. But seriously, don't tell me that's how it works with elite European Academies or on professional teams, because that's not where most kids are or where they will end up.

Does it really matter of your team if kids who are not likely to play beyond high school is in the 2nd or 3rd division of EDP? Is that important enough to cut kids who work hard but aren't quite there yet? And the year to year commitment works both ways for bubble and non-bubble players - you may get cut from the team with your friends and/or your friends get cut from your team while you remain. It is especially bad for girls. With so many clubs out there, this idea that kids should be shifted around each year is detrimental to their development. I can't quite figure out if it is a matter of club survival, coaching ego, the need to please insane parents who are demanding wins, or just the fact that everyone else does it so it is too hard to be different, but I know it is not good.

Not to sound too much like a soft soccer mom, but if more more clubs provided a more positive experience for players and had better communication with parents, there would be less moving around, which would promote stability in teams. Let's face it, the reason top teams are constantly taking in outside kids is because good players leave strong teams each year. Why is that? Rather than accepting this as a given, why don't we explore this and try to change it?

Here is a crazy idea. How about instead of posting the social media picture of the team winning a tournament (even if it is the lowest bracket), maybe clubs should brag about how long their players of been with the club or on a particular team, or show multiple B or C team players who worked their way to a top team, or quote parents who appreciate the regular, meaningful feedback their kids receive, regardless of what team they are on. Instead of bragging that a team is going to be in whatever league is the most elite this year, show that your teams (at all levels) are placed in appropriate leagues with appropriate competition. I would be more interested in learning more about player retention than wins and losses.

Oh, and have fewer teams. I know it is so tempting to take thousand of dollars from idiotic parents just so they can brag about their kid's "travel team" in their social circles while their hapless kid goes through the motions with no real interest in getting better, but be better than that. If we had fewer travel teams, then maybe rec leagues would become a realistic option, both at younger ages and for those older kids feeling burnt out from years of tryouts, and driving up and down the East coast, and the pressure to win. For kids who love that competitive environment- fine, offer that. But we do NOT need to have 8 roughly equal teams in a 30 mile radius traveling all over beginning at 8 years old when they could just play each other. I'm not sure we need it at 15. Instead of having low level C teams and giving them nothing at high cost, maybe offer pick ups or other ways that late bloomers can get playing time and improve their game.

There has to be a better way.

Finally, I have some personal observations about video games. To be sure, some of the attrition from organized sports is about lazy parents (I'm one of them) who don't do enough to limit video game time and stupid kids who get sucked in. But at the same time, I see why my kid has gotten sucked in. Because video games are fun. Because he can find similarly interested gamers and play with them, thereby having control over his playing environment. Because he sees how his practice makes him better (which is not always the case in club sports). When he fails, he just starts another game, and is not berated by any adult or threatened with a demotion or time on the bench. Video games, to him, are safe and the environment more within his control. Club soccer is often unfair, random, influenced by politics. It involves more driving time than playing time. All of these factors make organized sports less fun and video games more appealing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting report by the Aspen Institute on participation in youth sports.

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2018/10/StateofPlay2018_v4WEB_2-FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.107651328.32617992.1553087167-828947673.1553087167

A couple of interesting observations. The age change (i.e. kids lost friends on their teams) and the pay-to-play model is hurting youth soccer. There are also more choices now with Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, Volleyball, etc. picking up more participants on a percentage basis, albeit all still low compared to soccer. Video games / technology as an alternative pastime is also having some effect. I also found the discussion on youth coaches with training by sport interesting. Even though there is pay-to-play, not sure people are getting what they're paying for.

Here are some direct sections from the report:

"Soccer paid a heavy price for underestimating kids’ desire to play with friends. In an effort to develop better prospects for its national teams, the U.S. Soccer Federation two years ago began mandating that affiliated organizations down to the community level stop forming teams based on birthdates that fell within the school year. Instead, teams at every age level were reorganized based on calendar year birthdates, in which kids are less likely to play with same-grade peers. That broke up teams who have been playing together for years. Only 14.8 percent of children ages 6 to 12 played soccer in 2017, down from 17 percent in 2015.2 For children ages 6 to 17, soccer had the highest churn rate in 2017 among sports evaluated by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) — meaning 19.2 percent of youth returned to soccer or started playing, but 25.2 percent of youth who used to play soccer left the game."

"New study showed how few Virginia kids are served by the pay-to-play soccer model. George Mason University researcher Tyler Richardett created a project called 'Hidden Costs: Exploring Access to Youth Soccer in Virginia.' Using data from competitive youth soccer league schedules, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the clubs themselves, the project showed that children living in the southwest and southside regions of Virginia are “completely excluded” from the competitive pipeline and would require a 'massive' time commitment in order to play. Economic security was an effective predictor of opportunities for inclusion. Opportunities disappeared entirely once an area of Virginia’s nonwhite population exceeded 90 percent. The study also showed that the amount of required travel significantly increased as the competition level rose."

"Most youth coaches are still winging it. The percentage of adults trained in key competencies to engage kids remains stubbornly low, even as the value of having a trained coach has generally grown in the broader culture. The latest SFIA survey shows that less than four in 10 youth coaches say they are trained in any of the following areas: sport skills and tactics, effective motivational technique, or safety needs (CPR/basic first aid and concussion management). Many barriers exist to training the nation’s 6.5 million youth coaches, most of whom are volunteers."

This was a killer. The kids from our rec team moving into travel in 2nd/3rd grade were split up into different years---U9 and U10. It massively sucked. My oldest was a December 2005 and the year it took effect he bumped from U10 into U12. All but 2 kids on his travel team that had played U9&U10 together were also 2005s, the rest were 2006s. This was a very tight knit group. The year above was a very 'exclusionary, snotty' bunch of kids so the 2005s having to move up were miserable. We ended up switching Clubs.

But going forward with kids who never knew the difference it won't make a difference.

They will split out from their rec friends when they all get to travel and it forces kids into travel too young. Now you have 1st graders trying out to start their U9 year in 2nd grade. They know in this area they have to get in the pipeline at big Clubs even when the parents feel it's too early for their kid. It is a clusterf*ck and you have kids not ready for 90min 3X a week practices nearly year-round and missing friend's bday parties in 2nd grade because of this 'commitment'. Burnout is real.

When did rec teams transfer over to travel intact? My oldest kid ended up playing with just one kid from the rec team in travel and that was for just one year. In fact the rec teams rarely stayed the same from Fall to Spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting report by the Aspen Institute on participation in youth sports.

https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2018/10/StateofPlay2018_v4WEB_2-FINAL.pdf?_ga=2.107651328.32617992.1553087167-828947673.1553087167

A couple of interesting observations. The age change (i.e. kids lost friends on their teams) and the pay-to-play model is hurting youth soccer. There are also more choices now with Lacrosse, Ice Hockey, Volleyball, etc. picking up more participants on a percentage basis, albeit all still low compared to soccer. Video games / technology as an alternative pastime is also having some effect. I also found the discussion on youth coaches with training by sport interesting. Even though there is pay-to-play, not sure people are getting what they're paying for.

Here are some direct sections from the report:

"Soccer paid a heavy price for underestimating kids’ desire to play with friends. In an effort to develop better prospects for its national teams, the U.S. Soccer Federation two years ago began mandating that affiliated organizations down to the community level stop forming teams based on birthdates that fell within the school year. Instead, teams at every age level were reorganized based on calendar year birthdates, in which kids are less likely to play with same-grade peers. That broke up teams who have been playing together for years. Only 14.8 percent of children ages 6 to 12 played soccer in 2017, down from 17 percent in 2015.2 For children ages 6 to 17, soccer had the highest churn rate in 2017 among sports evaluated by the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) — meaning 19.2 percent of youth returned to soccer or started playing, but 25.2 percent of youth who used to play soccer left the game."

"New study showed how few Virginia kids are served by the pay-to-play soccer model. George Mason University researcher Tyler Richardett created a project called 'Hidden Costs: Exploring Access to Youth Soccer in Virginia.' Using data from competitive youth soccer league schedules, the U.S. Census Bureau, and the clubs themselves, the project showed that children living in the southwest and southside regions of Virginia are “completely excluded” from the competitive pipeline and would require a 'massive' time commitment in order to play. Economic security was an effective predictor of opportunities for inclusion. Opportunities disappeared entirely once an area of Virginia’s nonwhite population exceeded 90 percent. The study also showed that the amount of required travel significantly increased as the competition level rose."

"Most youth coaches are still winging it. The percentage of adults trained in key competencies to engage kids remains stubbornly low, even as the value of having a trained coach has generally grown in the broader culture. The latest SFIA survey shows that less than four in 10 youth coaches say they are trained in any of the following areas: sport skills and tactics, effective motivational technique, or safety needs (CPR/basic first aid and concussion management). Many barriers exist to training the nation’s 6.5 million youth coaches, most of whom are volunteers."

This was a killer. The kids from our rec team moving into travel in 2nd/3rd grade were split up into different years---U9 and U10. It massively sucked. My oldest was a December 2005 and the year it took effect he bumped from U10 into U12. All but 2 kids on his travel team that had played U9&U10 together were also 2005s, the rest were 2006s. This was a very tight knit group. The year above was a very 'exclusionary, snotty' bunch of kids so the 2005s having to move up were miserable. We ended up switching Clubs.

But going forward with kids who never knew the difference it won't make a difference.

Also people have this misconception that the kids will remain playing together for ever. People move, kids interests change, kids levels change, all impacting rosters so after a few years they won't be together regardless. Most kids make friends easily, maybe parents should just make new friends on the sidelines as well.