Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Farm systems do not give incentive for all to develop, only those in the very limited inclusive monopoly.

[Anonymous]

Sorry no inclusive, meant selective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone gets a trophy
Everyone plays
Everyone makes a team
Play if you can pay
Team A-E
Coach/Team manager kids with less talent
Obsession with coaches with foreign accents
Coaches having 3 teams
Too many clubs/leagues


US soccer will never succeed.

Tired, worn out cliches.

Everyone plays- Why shouldn't every kid have an opportunity?
Everyone makes a team- there should be a team of similar abilities for kids to play on.
Play if you can pay- National Healthcare is a sin tantamount to socialism but soccer should be free?
Team A-E- Again, if kids want to play why shouldn't they have the opportunity to play with kids of similar abilities?
Coach/Team manager kids with less talent- Yawn... The oldest sour grapes bitch in all of youth sports.
Coaches having 3 teams- I know right? And your kids math teacher only has one class too.
To many clubs/leagues- As long as there are kids who want to play why do you care?

And here's the defense to the reason American soccer is in the state is in. Haha. Your arguments to my "cliches" are the exact problem

[Anonymous]

Oh dear lord. Someone raised the pro/rel argument.

OK, here goes ...

1. MLS has made massive investments in youth academies in the last 10 years. Look at FC Dallas, which is signing umpteen players out of its academy and doing pretty well. They're making these investments because the league is *stable*. If they were going to be forced down the pyramid tomorrow, they wouldn't be able to make those investments.

2. If you think there's no punishment for failing in MLS and the games don't matter, let me take you into an MLS locker room to see the bruises and the frustration. Or let me introduce you to a former MLS player or coach.

3. Most of the MLS academies are free or dirt-cheap. Want to know the major exception? D.C. United. Why? Because they're still sinking tons of money into their lease in decrepit RFK Stadium because the same D.C. council that coughed up more than $600 million to build the Nationals' palace has dragged its feet for years just to come up with the land for a stadium United has long planned to finance on its own.

4. This competition you mention in a pro/rel pyramid works pretty well when you have tons of clubs in a small area. London has several clubs in the Premier League and many more at lower levels. (Alas, Fulham.) It's taken more than 20 years to have a league with two teams in New York and one in most other major cities. So what happens when the Chicago club isn't in D1 any more? Should those kids all pack up and move to Kansas City?

5. The problems with youth development aren't at the pro level. They're everywhere else. They're scattered all over a chaotic landscape in which everyone with an accent sets up a maverick soccer club and forms an "elite" league, and there are no coherent standards for anything. Good luck doing the contortions to blame Don Garber's presence on the USSF board (which also has reps from many other organizations) for all that.

I'm with you on training compensation and solidarity payments, and I hope the powers that be can come up with some system that gets around child-labor concerns (which I think are overblown, anyway, but I'm no lawyer) and the resistance of the MLS Players Union.

The rest of this is the typical nonsense suggesting there's one simple fix that will make the USA win World Cups all the damn time. There isn't. You don't just hire Jurgen Klinsmann and tell him his sword shall not rest in his hand until he's built Munich on America's green and pleasant land. You don't just go all-Latino or all-German or all-English or all-whatever and magically produce thousands of terrific pros all playing one national style. And you don't tell the people who have invested nine figures just so the USA can have a league with more than eight teams that you're going to plunge their investments into the sewer. Watch how quick your capital dries up if you try that now.

We may have pro/rel at some point. We're not there yet. You can't force the Richmond Kickers, a model club that fields a long-standing pro team that's integrated with a massive youth organization, to move up into a league in which it can't afford to play. You can't force the clubs that have self-relegated from the pro ranks to the amateur ranks, realizing they'll get the same amount of attendance and investment for a three-month season with college kids as they'll get for a six-month season with a payroll, to give up their business models.

Soccer is building pretty well in this country. In 1995, we were about a century behind. Sure, we had a big league in the 1920s and a nice little fad in the late 1970s and early 1980s. We did pretty well in the 1930 World Cup when practically no one else showed up, and we benefited from English hubris in 1950. But we had no roots. No pro league that gave talented Americans a chance to play -- and perhaps even move to one of the big leagues in Europe (and yes, we get transfer fees when that happens). No major investment in youth soccer.

You don't yell at your 15-year-old because he hasn't graduated from medical school yet. You look at his grades in high school and challenge him to do better. That's where we stand right now. And if you want to get to the Promised Land faster, buy a freaking time machine.

[Anonymous]

And the need for so many "travel" teams is a joke. A-B travel. Everyone else rec soccer with more competitive divisions to least competitive.

[Anonymous]

Exactly where do you all think the typical soccer players in Europe play? Do you honestly believe that Professional Club run Academies are something everyone enjoys?

Their youth soccer is not run terribly differently than our own. They have youth travel and rec leagues just like we do and get this, they even have, gasp! Parent coaches!

All these promotion/Relegation, player academies are for the 1% of players. And when you have kids from Brazil or Portugal moving to play in Barca youth system you think your trial player has a chance?

And in regards to the youth academy system, there is no promotion/relegation. In fact, they mostly play in friendlies. They don't judge the talent of a player based on the win loss of a team. They know that only one of the kids each year will make the big club and they are willing to run kids through the puppy mill to find him.

It would be great if we could incorporate much of their systems but if you honestly believe that their model is the typical youth experience you are completely wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the need for so many "travel" teams is a joke. A-B travel. Everyone else rec soccer with more competitive divisions to least competitive.

What is your fixation that everything needs to be ultra competitive? Having a league monopoly with stupid division after division would solve nothing. Frankly, who is the best U11 team doesn't matter. It is what happens Monday-Friday that make the kids better, not the outcome of Sunday. That approach is mostly what Europe and good soccer nations laugh at us about.

When the Soviets reigned supreme in Olympic Hockey because they had competitive divisions?

Did North Korea just destroy our U20's because of their extensive Promotion/Relegation system?

Did Iceland turn their tiny, tiny nation into a surprising Soccer power overnight because of a huge population?

In nearly all instances it was quality of training and focus on training. They all train players, not teams. Games just simply are not as important as quality training. Until this country gets that out of its head we will never advance. A structure that makes the best possible training the most available to kids is more important than worrying about whether Sunday's game iis competitive or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh dear lord. Someone raised the pro/rel argument.

Yes, it's funny how pro/rel always comes up when someone raises the topic of financial incentives for youth soccer development.

OK, here goes ...

1. MLS has made massive investments in youth academies in the last 10 years. Look at FC Dallas, which is signing umpteen players out of its academy and doing pretty well. They're making these investments because the league is *stable*. If they were going to be forced down the pyramid tomorrow, they wouldn't be able to make those investments.

Massive compared to what? The level of MLS investment prior to the last 10 years? OK, I'll give you that. Compared to our competition around the world? No, sorry. Not even close.

The theory that clubs would not invest in youth development if they weren't in a "stable" league (i.e. without fear of being relegated), is an interesting one. The alternative theory is that the fear of relegation would actually spur more investment, and more 1st division clubs would follow FC Dallas lead and make sure they were doing youth development right so they could increase the competitiveness of their club and avoid the drop. Not only that, but instead of only a handful (relative to the size of the country) of clubs making serious investments in youth development (only the top division), clubs at every layer of the pyramid would be have an incentive to do the same.

So we have two competing theories. Mine is that pro/rel operates as an incentive for clubs to invest in youth development rather than charging parents for it. You are advancing the theory that pro/rel (or at least the "rel" side of it), would act as a disincentive for such investment. And in support of my theory, I think I can point to every single club in the top 3-4 divisions of every country in Europe - all of which have fully funded youth academies. And you? What is your example?

2. If you think there's no punishment for failing in MLS and the games don't matter, let me take you into an MLS locker room to see the bruises and the frustration. Or let me introduce you to a former MLS player or coach.

Of course MLS games matter to the players. They are competitive athletes. Scrimmages and friendlies matter to them too. But there is a difference in competitive intensity between a scrimmage and a match, just as there is a difference in competitive intensity between an MLS regular season game and a playoff game, and there is a difference in competitive intensity between the environment in a pro/rel system compared to the MLS generally. Just about any player who has experienced both will tell you the same thing. Besides, the question was about play-to-play, and my comment about their being no punishment for failure in the MLS was directed more at the club level than individual players.

3. Most of the MLS academies are free or dirt-cheap. Want to know the major exception? D.C. United. Why? Because they're still sinking tons of money into their lease in decrepit RFK Stadium because the same D.C. council that coughed up more than $600 million to build the Nationals' palace has dragged its feet for years just to come up with the land for a stadium United has long planned to finance on its own.

And even if/when DCU comes on board with the rest of MLS clubs and stops charging, at that point we might have what, all of 20 youth academies in the entire country that aren't pay-to-play? Wow. Look out world, here we come!


4. This competition you mention in a pro/rel pyramid works pretty well when you have tons of clubs in a small area. London has several clubs in the Premier League and many more at lower levels. (Alas, Fulham.) It's taken more than 20 years to have a league with two teams in New York and one in most other major cities. So what happens when the Chicago club isn't in D1 any more? Should those kids all pack up and move to Kansas City?

So what you're saying is that you agree that free market competition between independent businesses might be great and all, but we really need to keep this monopoly thing going until we first have enough strong and healthy independent businesses to be able to compete in that market. A little circular, isn't it? You don't think the reason we don't have more professional clubs in NY has anything at all to do with the fact that we don't have an open market?

To answer your question about what happens to the kids in Chicago when their club gets relegated to D2, the answer is the same thing that happens to kids in the rest of the world when that occurs. The club continues to invest and improve to try and compete its way back to the top. In the meantime, maybe another club in Chicago does a better job and gets promoted. Again, you are trying to make this an abstract discussion, but it's not. We don't have to speculate and hypothesize about how pro/rel might work if it were ever implemented.

5. The problems with youth development aren't at the pro level. They're everywhere else. They're scattered all over a chaotic landscape in which everyone with an accent sets up a maverick soccer club and forms an "elite" league, and there are no coherent standards for anything. Good luck doing the contortions to blame Don Garber's presence on the USSF board (which also has reps from many other organizations) for all that.

Again, the question was about pay-to-play, and why we have that system whereas other countries don't. The answer is that for the most part, youth player development in the rest of the world is funded by professional clubs. Whether you want to admit it or not, the reasons why those clubs chose to invest in youth player development - why they believe it to be in their financial self interest to do so -- have a lot to do with pro/rel at the professional level, along with the other three factors that I mentioned.

I'm with you on training compensation and solidarity payments, and I hope the powers that be can come up with some system that gets around child-labor concerns (which I think are overblown, anyway, but I'm no lawyer) and the resistance of the MLS Players Union.

The rest of this is the typical nonsense suggesting there's one simple fix that will make the USA win World Cups all the damn time. There isn't. You don't just hire Jurgen Klinsmann and tell him his sword shall not rest in his hand until he's built Munich on America's green and pleasant land. You don't just go all-Latino or all-German or all-English or all-whatever and magically produce thousands of terrific pros all playing one national style. And you don't tell the people who have invested nine figures just so the USA can have a league with more than eight teams that you're going to plunge their investments into the sewer. Watch how quick your capital dries up if you try that now.

"typical nonsense suggesting there's one simple fix ... " Thanks for that, but no. I did not suggest there was one simple fix to make the USA better. The question was why our youth development system depends on pay-to-play as opposed to the systems in place elsewhere. In my opinion, the four factors that I mentioned all operate together to create a financial incentive for a large number of professional clubs to invest in long term youth development. Those incentives do not exist here to the same scale or degree.

The idea that US investors wouldn't invest in clubs competing in an open system doesn't hold water either - because they do. Your beloved Fulham is just one of many examples.

We may have pro/rel at some point. We're not there yet. You can't force the Richmond Kickers, a model club that fields a long-standing pro team that's integrated with a massive youth organization, to move up into a league in which it can't afford to play. You can't force the clubs that have self-relegated from the pro ranks to the amateur ranks, realizing they'll get the same amount of attendance and investment for a three-month season with college kids as they'll get for a six-month season with a payroll, to give up their business models.

Speaking of nonsense .... I don't think any club, anywhere in the world, ever, has been "forced" to be promoted against their will. Additionally, the leagues in pro/rel systems all have certain infrastructure and financial requirements that need to be met before a team can be promoted, even if they have placed high enough in the table.

The fact that our lower leagues are populated by a lot of clubs without much ambition makes perfect sense, given that they are operating in a system which gives absolutely no reason for anyone with ambition to invest in it.

Soccer is building pretty well in this country. In 1995, we were about a century behind. Sure, we had a big league in the 1920s and a nice little fad in the late 1970s and early 1980s. We did pretty well in the 1930 World Cup when practically no one else showed up, and we benefited from English hubris in 1950. But we had no roots. No pro league that gave talented Americans a chance to play -- and perhaps even move to one of the big leagues in Europe (and yes, we get transfer fees when that happens). No major investment in youth soccer.

You don't yell at your 15-year-old because he hasn't graduated from medical school yet. You look at his grades in high school and challenge him to do better. That's where we stand right now. And if you want to get to the Promised Land faster, buy a freaking time machine.

Soccer is building in this country in spite of the policies of the USSF and MLS, not because of them. Again, the original question was why does the U.S. primarily rely on pay-to-play, while the rest of the world doesn't. You don't seem to think that pro/rel has anything to do with that. Ok, fine. What's your answer then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This was a nice summary, unfortunately it ignores many reasons why our system is the way it is. The MLS is mostly a joke and the league as a whole and the clubs on a whole don't have the money to run academy programs that are free. They would also currently would not be able to produce talent at a international level. The European model allows the clubs to make money off if the players. The players are sold like a product. Our professional athletes fought hard for free agency to eliminate this.

But, if you can get past free agency your next hurdle is child labor laws.

But the largest hurdle is simply that the MLS is not a relevant league and does not have deep enough pockets to either develop or even draw in talent even in the U.S. not to even mention international players.

Again, as MLS matures and grows I think the best we can hope for is a farm league system much like baseball or hockey. I know, more leagues, but the North American hockey product has proven extremely successful on the international stage with its current structure. We don't need to copy everything Europe does to be successful but clearly the way we are doing it isn't working either.

1. Free agency. European players actually have much, much more freedom of movement and control over their careers than MLS players do. To be a free agent in the MLS - players have to be (1) out of contract; (2) at least 28 years old; and (3) have "accrued at least 8 years of service" to the MLS. In Europe players can move anywhere they want on what's called a free transfer as soon as their contract is up. It's called the Bosman rule. Named after a player who sued in the European Court.

Even when it comes to regular transfers and loan deals, there are always 3 parties that need to agree on every deal - the selling club, the buying club, and the player himself. Unless all 3 come to terms, the deal doesn't happen. Players cannot be "traded" without their consent.

2. Child labor laws as an impediment to solidarity/training compensation. This argument was floated around for years until people finally started calling bulls**t. I have never seen anyone actually cite to a specific U.S. statue, regulation, Dept of Labor statement, etc.... Case in point, when Tottenham contacted MLS asking who they should send the solidarity payments to for the Yedlin transfer, the response of U.S. Soccer and MLS was not "Sorry, but we don't do that here because of our child labor laws." Instead, MLS just took the money for themselves instead of passing it on to the youth club as they were required per FIFA regs. Liviu Bird who writes for Sports Illustrated has done some really good work on this issue if anyone is interested: http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/01/25/training-compensation-solidarity-us-soccer-mls.

3. Farm system. You may be right but I really hope not. That definitely seems like MLS master plan at the moment - squeezing NASL out of existence and taking over USL to run it like a minor league.

I agree we don't need to copy everything Europe does, but I would love to hear some suggestions on how we can take that system as a model and then maybe do some things better, rather than everyone saying we'll never be able to do it as well as them so we just need to settle for whatever small marginal improvements we can get. I don't want to settle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Personally, I think FIFA is just trying to screw us."

Agreed with everything until this. It's not FIFA it's MLS that doesn't allow us to make these changes to be like the rest of the world. It doesn't help that the MLS president sits on the board of US Soccer. How can the federation make independent decisions when it's being influenced by the country's soccer monopoly instead of making decisions for all clubs. Conflict of interest.

Yeah, the FIFA part was meant as a joke, sort of. I agree the real problem is that we have a federation that seems to serve MLS' interests rather than the good of the game. And you didn't even mention the SUM connection. Gulati needs to go. I don't fault Garber for looking out for his employer's interests, but he shouldn't be sitting on the board.

Back to FIFA though, I do think it's interesting that one regulation they have started enforcing rigidly against American players is Art 19 - prohibiting international youth transfers. We have a good example of this locally with the Morovek brothers - formerly at Fulham but now forced back here b/c of FIFA's crackdown. Deliberate or not, the combined effect is that FIFA is trapping American kids in a fundamentally flawed system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the need for so many "travel" teams is a joke. A-B travel. Everyone else rec soccer with more competitive divisions to least competitive.

What is your fixation that everything needs to be ultra competitive? Having a league monopoly with stupid division after division would solve nothing. Frankly, who is the best U11 team doesn't matter. It is what happens Monday-Friday that make the kids better, not the outcome of Sunday. That approach is mostly what Europe and good soccer nations laugh at us about.

When the Soviets reigned supreme in Olympic Hockey because they had competitive divisions?

Did North Korea just destroy our U20's because of their extensive Promotion/Relegation system?

Did Iceland turn their tiny, tiny nation into a surprising Soccer power overnight because of a huge population?

In nearly all instances it was quality of training and focus on training. They all train players, not teams. Games just simply are not as important as quality training. Until this country gets that out of its head we will never advance. A structure that makes the best possible training the most available to kids is more important than worrying about whether Sunday's game iis competitive or not.

You do realize that 2 of the 3 examples you cited are communist dictatorships, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Soccer is building in this country in spite of the policies of the USSF and MLS, not because of them.

I can refute this very easily. Let's step into a time machine and check out the U.S. soccer landscape in 1994. (Or check out any of the histories -- I suggest Dave Wangerin's "Soccer in a Football World" or perhaps "Offside: Soccer and American Exceptionalism." It's touched upon in "Soccer Against the Enemy" and "How Soccer Explains the World." And an MLS history book written by some dude who apparently lurks here.)

Again, the original question was why does the U.S. primarily rely on pay-to-play, while the rest of the world doesn't.

Barcelona isn't the best academy in the world because it's afraid of being relegated. It's the best academy in the world because it's trying to beat Real Madrid domestically and everyone else in Europe, and because the club is a simple of Catalan identity.

Also, Ajax isn't a great academy because it's afraid of being relegated. It's a great academy because a lot of the best football brains in the Netherlands concentrated there. It's a small country. Easy commute from wherever you live.

Also, these clubs are swimming in money and/or history built up over decades. They have sponsors who plow tons of money into their clubs. Some youth programs overseas even have government help.

In short: Because "the rest of the world" (and let's be honest, we really mean Spain, Germany, England, Italy, France and Ajax here) has a head start of several generations.

Pro/rel ain't changing that. It it happens, it's because we have 40-50 clubs worthy of competing at the top tier -- all with the facilities to compete. Which means we need to build the clubs first, then have pro/rel to sharpen them.

You want to go from 0 to 150 in 5 seconds? OK. Watch for the G force.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This was a nice summary, unfortunately it ignores many reasons why our system is the way it is. The MLS is mostly a joke and the league as a whole and the clubs on a whole don't have the money to run academy programs that are free. They would also currently would not be able to produce talent at a international level. The European model allows the clubs to make money off if the players. The players are sold like a product. Our professional athletes fought hard for free agency to eliminate this.

But, if you can get past free agency your next hurdle is child labor laws.

But the largest hurdle is simply that the MLS is not a relevant league and does not have deep enough pockets to either develop or even draw in talent even in the U.S. not to even mention international players.

Again, as MLS matures and grows I think the best we can hope for is a farm league system much like baseball or hockey. I know, more leagues, but the North American hockey product has proven extremely successful on the international stage with its current structure. We don't need to copy everything Europe does to be successful but clearly the way we are doing it isn't working either.

1. Free agency. European players actually have much, much more freedom of movement and control over their careers than MLS players do. To be a free agent in the MLS - players have to be (1) out of contract; (2) at least 28 years old; and (3) have "accrued at least 8 years of service" to the MLS. In Europe players can move anywhere they want on what's called a free transfer as soon as their contract is up. It's called the Bosman rule. Named after a player who sued in the European Court.

Even when it comes to regular transfers and loan deals, there are always 3 parties that need to agree on every deal - the selling club, the buying club, and the player himself. Unless all 3 come to terms, the deal doesn't happen. Players cannot be "traded" without their consent.

2. Child labor laws as an impediment to solidarity/training compensation. This argument was floated around for years until people finally started calling bulls**t. I have never seen anyone actually cite to a specific U.S. statue, regulation, Dept of Labor statement, etc.... Case in point, when Tottenham contacted MLS asking who they should send the solidarity payments to for the Yedlin transfer, the response of U.S. Soccer and MLS was not "Sorry, but we don't do that here because of our child labor laws." Instead, MLS just took the money for themselves instead of passing it on to the youth club as they were required per FIFA regs. Liviu Bird who writes for Sports Illustrated has done some really good work on this issue if anyone is interested: http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2016/01/25/training-compensation-solidarity-us-soccer-mls.

3. Farm system. You may be right but I really hope not. That definitely seems like MLS master plan at the moment - squeezing NASL out of existence and taking over USL to run it like a minor league.

I agree we don't need to copy everything Europe does, but I would love to hear some suggestions on how we can take that system as a model and then maybe do some things better, rather than everyone saying we'll never be able to do it as well as them so we just need to settle for whatever small marginal improvements we can get. I don't want to settle.

These are all fair points. (That said, Liviu doesn't write for SI any more.)

What I'd like to see the USA borrow from Germany is a massive coaching-education program that sends coaches out all over country to work with kids who may or may not have been identified by the big local clubs. Like ODP, but really revved up with huge reach and great coaches. That said, I have no idea how to pay for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the need for so many "travel" teams is a joke. A-B travel. Everyone else rec soccer with more competitive divisions to least competitive.

What is your fixation that everything needs to be ultra competitive? Having a league monopoly with stupid division after division would solve nothing. Frankly, who is the best U11 team doesn't matter. It is what happens Monday-Friday that make the kids better, not the outcome of Sunday. That approach is mostly what Europe and good soccer nations laugh at us about.

When the Soviets reigned supreme in Olympic Hockey because they had competitive divisions?

Did North Korea just destroy our U20's because of their extensive Promotion/Relegation system?

Did Iceland turn their tiny, tiny nation into a surprising Soccer power overnight because of a huge population?

In nearly all instances it was quality of training and focus on training. They all train players, not teams. Games just simply are not as important as quality training. Until this country gets that out of its head we will never advance. A structure that makes the best possible training the most available to kids is more important than worrying about whether Sunday's game iis competitive or not.

You do realize that 2 of the 3 examples you cited are communist dictatorships, right?

Hey, autocracies have no trouble getting money for their sports programs. They just take it away from things like "food" and "uncorrupted law enforcement."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And in regards to the youth academy system, there is no promotion/relegation. In fact, they mostly play in friendlies. They don't judge the talent of a player based on the win loss of a team. They know that only one of the kids each year will make the big club and they are willing to run kids through the puppy mill to find him.

We already have a league setup like this, it's called CCL ! No pro/rel and no year end playoffs/tournament everyone is trying to get into. Perfect environment to focus on development.