Jermaine Jones destroys Jordan Morris - I think it might be valuable to some parents here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally ok with us not bringing the European system here, FWIW.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/sports/soccer/clubs-apparel-neale-mcdermott-adidas.html

Last week, it emerged that Manchester City had paid the League One club Southend United 175,000 pounds (about $215,000) to sign Finley Burns, a 13-year-old defender.

Or you can look at the 11-year-old washouts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/sports/soccer/premier-league-youth-soccer.html

So I don't have a problem with it, here's why. The only kids taking those offers from adidas and Nike are the ones who along with their parents don't see a way out. A kid here with middle-class parents wouldn't have to bother with deals from shoe companies to agree to anything because they for the most part don't need adidas and Nike to pay for any of their gear. If you read the article through, at the end it says

*“They are doing what the clubs are doing and what the agents are doing,” Drummy said. “The deals aren’t anything massive, and they’re not at extortionate rates. They are casting the net and trying to bring in the talent.”

To many, the brands are a blessing. Their involvement can save the parents of young players, often from underprivileged backgrounds, hundreds of dollars a year.*

You know, although the case isn't similar, this reminds of the NBA in 2006 when they changed the rules to be eligible for the draft to essentially force all players play one year of college. This was a boon for colleges and NCAA as they now had a right to claim more money for tv rights for players that were essentially ready for the pro's but needed to play for nothing as a slave and follow the archaic NCAA rules to be eligible to ply their trade. Those players weren't interested in pursuing a college education and frankly didn't need one to try out for a sports team. We woudln't hold back promising mechanics, carpenters, artists, from having to do one year of college before offering their services to the public, why should athletes have to do it.

Let Nike and adidas take bets on players, if they don't follow through, it will be their loss. There isn't an adidas or Nike team. By the way, look at YouTube and IG stars and SnapChat they're hawking products left and right and getting paid, no one is batting an eye at that because the private companies are free to pay who they want to pay for marketing.

The disturbing part isn't so much the relatively trivial Adidas or Nike endorsements, it's the club payments and lockouts, and the way that kids are treated in that system. I have no interest in moving to a system of de facto child labor just to produce a few soccer stars. No thanks.

Yup, I agree.
Having a system that'll produce the best players and having a system that's the best for the players are two entirely different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally ok with us not bringing the European system here, FWIW.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/sports/soccer/clubs-apparel-neale-mcdermott-adidas.html

Last week, it emerged that Manchester City had paid the League One club Southend United 175,000 pounds (about $215,000) to sign Finley Burns, a 13-year-old defender.

Or you can look at the 11-year-old washouts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/sports/soccer/premier-league-youth-soccer.html

So I don't have a problem with it, here's why. The only kids taking those offers from adidas and Nike are the ones who along with their parents don't see a way out. A kid here with middle-class parents wouldn't have to bother with deals from shoe companies to agree to anything because they for the most part don't need adidas and Nike to pay for any of their gear. If you read the article through, at the end it says

*“They are doing what the clubs are doing and what the agents are doing,” Drummy said. “The deals aren’t anything massive, and they’re not at extortionate rates. They are casting the net and trying to bring in the talent.”

To many, the brands are a blessing. Their involvement can save the parents of young players, often from underprivileged backgrounds, hundreds of dollars a year.*

You know, although the case isn't similar, this reminds of the NBA in 2006 when they changed the rules to be eligible for the draft to essentially force all players play one year of college. This was a boon for colleges and NCAA as they now had a right to claim more money for tv rights for players that were essentially ready for the pro's but needed to play for nothing as a slave and follow the archaic NCAA rules to be eligible to ply their trade. Those players weren't interested in pursuing a college education and frankly didn't need one to try out for a sports team. We woudln't hold back promising mechanics, carpenters, artists, from having to do one year of college before offering their services to the public, why should athletes have to do it.

Let Nike and adidas take bets on players, if they don't follow through, it will be their loss. There isn't an adidas or Nike team. By the way, look at YouTube and IG stars and SnapChat they're hawking products left and right and getting paid, no one is batting an eye at that because the private companies are free to pay who they want to pay for marketing.

The disturbing part isn't so much the relatively trivial Adidas or Nike endorsements, it's the club payments and lockouts, and the way that kids are treated in that system. I have no interest in moving to a system of de facto child labor just to produce a few soccer stars. No thanks.

Yup, I agree.
Having a system that'll produce the best players and having a system that's the best for the players are two entirely different things.

ITA. Frankly I don't want to go to a system that produces the best players in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally ok with us not bringing the European system here, FWIW.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/sports/soccer/clubs-apparel-neale-mcdermott-adidas.html

Last week, it emerged that Manchester City had paid the League One club Southend United 175,000 pounds (about $215,000) to sign Finley Burns, a 13-year-old defender.

Or you can look at the 11-year-old washouts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/sports/soccer/premier-league-youth-soccer.html

So I don't have a problem with it, here's why. The only kids taking those offers from adidas and Nike are the ones who along with their parents don't see a way out. A kid here with middle-class parents wouldn't have to bother with deals from shoe companies to agree to anything because they for the most part don't need adidas and Nike to pay for any of their gear. If you read the article through, at the end it says

*“They are doing what the clubs are doing and what the agents are doing,” Drummy said. “The deals aren’t anything massive, and they’re not at extortionate rates. They are casting the net and trying to bring in the talent.”

To many, the brands are a blessing. Their involvement can save the parents of young players, often from underprivileged backgrounds, hundreds of dollars a year.*

You know, although the case isn't similar, this reminds of the NBA in 2006 when they changed the rules to be eligible for the draft to essentially force all players play one year of college. This was a boon for colleges and NCAA as they now had a right to claim more money for tv rights for players that were essentially ready for the pro's but needed to play for nothing as a slave and follow the archaic NCAA rules to be eligible to ply their trade. Those players weren't interested in pursuing a college education and frankly didn't need one to try out for a sports team. We woudln't hold back promising mechanics, carpenters, artists, from having to do one year of college before offering their services to the public, why should athletes have to do it.

Let Nike and adidas take bets on players, if they don't follow through, it will be their loss. There isn't an adidas or Nike team. By the way, look at YouTube and IG stars and SnapChat they're hawking products left and right and getting paid, no one is batting an eye at that because the private companies are free to pay who they want to pay for marketing.

The disturbing part isn't so much the relatively trivial Adidas or Nike endorsements, it's the club payments and lockouts, and the way that kids are treated in that system. I have no interest in moving to a system of de facto child labor just to produce a few soccer stars. No thanks.

Yup, I agree.
Having a system that'll produce the best players and having a system that's the best for the players are two entirely different things.

ITA. Frankly I don't want to go to a system that produces the best players in the world.

Actually you think of the best players in the world, follow through and you will see that they aren't coming from England, but from South America and South/Central/Western Europe. I won't claim to know all the answers, but the way those academies for clubs and countries FA association training centers are structured are different than UK's. England has the premier league with a lot of money from tv rights and merchandise which allows their teams to buy a lot of foreign players. You look at the England MNT, it's garbage.

Ask yourselves, why aren't clubs like Bayern, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Dortmund, Atletico Madrid, Juventus, Napoli, PSG, buying players from the English teams that were trained in the English academies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally ok with us not bringing the European system here, FWIW.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/sports/soccer/clubs-apparel-neale-mcdermott-adidas.html

Last week, it emerged that Manchester City had paid the League One club Southend United 175,000 pounds (about $215,000) to sign Finley Burns, a 13-year-old defender.

Or you can look at the 11-year-old washouts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/sports/soccer/premier-league-youth-soccer.html

So I don't have a problem with it, here's why. The only kids taking those offers from adidas and Nike are the ones who along with their parents don't see a way out. A kid here with middle-class parents wouldn't have to bother with deals from shoe companies to agree to anything because they for the most part don't need adidas and Nike to pay for any of their gear. If you read the article through, at the end it says

*“They are doing what the clubs are doing and what the agents are doing,” Drummy said. “The deals aren’t anything massive, and they’re not at extortionate rates. They are casting the net and trying to bring in the talent.”

To many, the brands are a blessing. Their involvement can save the parents of young players, often from underprivileged backgrounds, hundreds of dollars a year.*

You know, although the case isn't similar, this reminds of the NBA in 2006 when they changed the rules to be eligible for the draft to essentially force all players play one year of college. This was a boon for colleges and NCAA as they now had a right to claim more money for tv rights for players that were essentially ready for the pro's but needed to play for nothing as a slave and follow the archaic NCAA rules to be eligible to ply their trade. Those players weren't interested in pursuing a college education and frankly didn't need one to try out for a sports team. We woudln't hold back promising mechanics, carpenters, artists, from having to do one year of college before offering their services to the public, why should athletes have to do it.

Let Nike and adidas take bets on players, if they don't follow through, it will be their loss. There isn't an adidas or Nike team. By the way, look at YouTube and IG stars and SnapChat they're hawking products left and right and getting paid, no one is batting an eye at that because the private companies are free to pay who they want to pay for marketing.

The disturbing part isn't so much the relatively trivial Adidas or Nike endorsements, it's the club payments and lockouts, and the way that kids are treated in that system. I have no interest in moving to a system of de facto child labor just to produce a few soccer stars. No thanks.

Yup, I agree.
Having a system that'll produce the best players and having a system that's the best for the players are two entirely different things.

ITA. Frankly I don't want to go to a system that produces the best players in the world.

Actually you think of the best players in the world, follow through and you will see that they aren't coming from England, but from South America and South/Central/Western Europe. I won't claim to know all the answers, but the way those academies for clubs and countries FA association training centers are structured are different than UK's. England has the premier league with a lot of money from tv rights and merchandise which allows their teams to buy a lot of foreign players. You look at the England MNT, it's garbage.

Ask yourselves, why aren't clubs like Bayern, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Dortmund, Atletico Madrid, Juventus, Napoli, PSG, buying players from the English teams that were trained in the English academies?

You want to go to the South American system, where players are literally bought and sold by investors at a young age? No thanks.
As to your other point, the best English players tend to stay in England, just like the best Spanish players tend to stay in Spain.
And yes, England might not be the best example per se, as your point about their national team is spot on, but England, Spain, Italy and France all have similar youth systems, and could have been in that NYT's article interchangeably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm totally ok with us not bringing the European system here, FWIW.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/21/sports/soccer/clubs-apparel-neale-mcdermott-adidas.html

Last week, it emerged that Manchester City had paid the League One club Southend United 175,000 pounds (about $215,000) to sign Finley Burns, a 13-year-old defender.

Or you can look at the 11-year-old washouts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/sports/soccer/premier-league-youth-soccer.html

So I don't have a problem with it, here's why. The only kids taking those offers from adidas and Nike are the ones who along with their parents don't see a way out. A kid here with middle-class parents wouldn't have to bother with deals from shoe companies to agree to anything because they for the most part don't need adidas and Nike to pay for any of their gear. If you read the article through, at the end it says

*“They are doing what the clubs are doing and what the agents are doing,” Drummy said. “The deals aren’t anything massive, and they’re not at extortionate rates. They are casting the net and trying to bring in the talent.”

To many, the brands are a blessing. Their involvement can save the parents of young players, often from underprivileged backgrounds, hundreds of dollars a year.*

You know, although the case isn't similar, this reminds of the NBA in 2006 when they changed the rules to be eligible for the draft to essentially force all players play one year of college. This was a boon for colleges and NCAA as they now had a right to claim more money for tv rights for players that were essentially ready for the pro's but needed to play for nothing as a slave and follow the archaic NCAA rules to be eligible to ply their trade. Those players weren't interested in pursuing a college education and frankly didn't need one to try out for a sports team. We woudln't hold back promising mechanics, carpenters, artists, from having to do one year of college before offering their services to the public, why should athletes have to do it.

Let Nike and adidas take bets on players, if they don't follow through, it will be their loss. There isn't an adidas or Nike team. By the way, look at YouTube and IG stars and SnapChat they're hawking products left and right and getting paid, no one is batting an eye at that because the private companies are free to pay who they want to pay for marketing.

The disturbing part isn't so much the relatively trivial Adidas or Nike endorsements, it's the club payments and lockouts, and the way that kids are treated in that system. I have no interest in moving to a system of de facto child labor just to produce a few soccer stars. No thanks.

Yup, I agree.
Having a system that'll produce the best players and having a system that's the best for the players are two entirely different things.

ITA. Frankly I don't want to go to a system that produces the best players in the world.

Actually you think of the best players in the world, follow through and you will see that they aren't coming from England, but from South America and South/Central/Western Europe. I won't claim to know all the answers, but the way those academies for clubs and countries FA association training centers are structured are different than UK's. England has the premier league with a lot of money from tv rights and merchandise which allows their teams to buy a lot of foreign players. You look at the England MNT, it's garbage.

Ask yourselves, why aren't clubs like Bayern, Barcelona, Real Madrid, Dortmund, Atletico Madrid, Juventus, Napoli, PSG, buying players from the English teams that were trained in the English academies?

You want to go to the South American system, where players are literally bought and sold by investors at a young age? No thanks.
As to your other point, the best English players tend to stay in England, just like the best Spanish players tend to stay in Spain.
And yes, England might not be the best example per se, as your point about their national team is spot on, but England, Spain, Italy and France all have similar youth systems, and could have been in that NYT's article interchangeably.

I never said to go to the South American system, where you essentially find 'venture capitalists' for soccer that can bankroll a player's travel and other such expenses in return for a portion of their future earnings. What those investors often provide is connections, trials, more training, advice. We need a system that type of training and networks for the best of the best. The difference in the US is those types of connections and training are only available to the wealthy(see Jordan Morris), or in Michael Bradley's case the connected. This will lead to more American black and Latino players being in the USMNT and being the exports of the US; I'm not saying they will the majority, but their overall portion of the current players on the USMNT and being looked at by European clubs will increase.

Just look at the types of travel the USYS national leagues play with, or the types of travel required for going overseas with ODP or other international programs. Or with US Club soccer the type of travel for national competitions. There are plenty of potentially good players who don't make it to practice on time or at all because their parents can't take off from work. None of these players will ever participate in the national competitions, whether they are good enough or not. Do understand, the type of system that will cast a wide net would be a socialist one, where plenty of parents pay into a team/club/assoc. that in turns hands it over to another organization that uses that money to benefit players merit, talent, and potential. Chances are there might be parents who pay into a system that doesn't ever look at their child, in order for the organization to look at another child whose parents have not paid at all into the system.