Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And funny thing is people complain about CCL trave but will catch a fucking flight across country for an end of season or qualifying tournament in other leagues ????

[Anonymous]

N.B.: What an interesting discussion has spawned from some soccer mom's post about ECNL's afterlife come 2017-18. Girls DA ID sessions are around the corner, and will be interesting to see where the top inner Beltway rising U14 girls show up . . . Watson in McLean, or Best in Fairfax. Please continue the discussion on how screwed our youth system is. Actually very interesting time killer until figure out how to help 2004 DD decide how to best use time and money in pursuit of all the red herrings ahead. Thanks to all the posters over the past couple days (serious). Very cool tangent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, but that still doesn't answer the question. Barcelona, Madrid and Ajax aren't the only clubs who don't have pay-to-play. It is not just superclubs that fund youth academies. It is not even just clubs in the top divisions. It happens everywhere, at every level, at clubs of all sizes.

You mentioned Barcelona. For an aspiring young player with talent, there are in fact a multitude of options for where to play - outside of the two obvious in Espanyol and FCB. Take Cornella FC for example. They are a small professional club in the suburbs of Barcelona. They are not "swimming in money." They play in the 3rd division, in a stadium that only holds 1500. But they have ambition, and they have a youth academy, and it's not pay-to-play. When Jordi Alba got cut from La Masia as a youth player, that's where he went. He began his youth career at another 3rd division club in Catalonia, L' Hospitalet. Also, not pay-to-play. It is the same everywhere. Iniesta started at Albacete, a bigger club than Cornella or Hopsitalet, but also currently in the 3rd division. Not pay to play. David Villa spent most of his youth career at a club called Langreo, in Asturia. 4th division professional club with a youth academy that is not pay to play.

Enough of Spain, let's look at France. Take AAS Sarcelles as an example. Never heard of them? Not surprising. They are a tiny professional club that plays in the suburbs of Paris, in a stadium that holds only 2000. They play in a regional league, somewhere below the top 5 divisions in France. But they have ambition, and they have a youth academy, full of mostly poor African immigrants from their community. It is not pay-to-play. If it was, Riyad Mahrez most definitely would not have been able to afford it. Griezman played most of his youth career (prior to being scouted by Sociedad) at Club Maconnais. Founded in 1999, the club also plays in a regional league, but is working its way up the pyramid through promotion and relegation. I think one more promotion and they will be in the national leagues - 5th division. Also, not pay-to-play.

And no, we are not just talking about Europe. South American academies are not pay-to-play either. Look at DC United's own Luciano Acosta. As a teenager he played for Boca Jrs -not pay-to-play but that's one of those superclubs swimming in money, sponsors, history, etc.... But Acosta didn't start off playing for Boca. He was only picked up by them at about age 13. Before then he was not considered good enough. So up to U12 he played his youth football for Club Communicaciones - another tiny professional club that plays in the "regionalized 3rd division of the Argentine football system." Not pay to play.

Look, you seem to have confused me with one of those zealots on Twitter who posits that pro/rel as some kind of "magic bullet" which will fix everything that is wrong with youth soccer development in this country all by itself. That is not me.

But when someone asks a question about why youth soccer development in the US is primarily pay to play, while in other countries around the world it isn't, the answer has to start with the reality that most of the professional level training in the rest of the world is conducted by professional clubs, who fund that training themselves rather than charge parents thousands of dollars a year, because they believe it is in their economic self interest to do so. And if you want to understand why so many clubs around the world - big and small - believe it is in their economic self interest to invest in youth training, you have to look at what market forces are in place that leads them to believe there will be a return on their investment. Again, I am not saying that pro/rel is the only reason for that. Training compensation and solidarity payments are critical to the survival of many of these small clubs, and they could not go on doing what they do without them. But the fact that the rest of the world has independent clubs competing against one another in an open market, while we do not, is undeniably a part of the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:N.B.: What an interesting discussion has spawned from some soccer mom's post about ECNL's afterlife come 2017-18. Girls DA ID sessions are around the corner, and will be interesting to see where the top inner Beltway rising U14 girls show up . . . Watson in McLean, or Best in Fairfax. Please continue the discussion on how screwed our youth system is. Actually very interesting time killer until figure out how to help 2004 DD decide how to best use time and money in pursuit of all the red herrings ahead. Thanks to all the posters over the past couple days (serious). Very cool tangent.

I don't think the first years of GDA will be a great separator. I would worry more about the right coach and logistics for your DD next year. I really don't believe ECNL is going away anytime soon. Hell, how many times has ODP been "killed"? There are so many quality players in this region that both can be supported. ECNL will be scaled back in other regions and likely fold into NPL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, but that still doesn't answer the question. Barcelona, Madrid and Ajax aren't the only clubs who don't have pay-to-play. It is not just superclubs that fund youth academies. It is not even just clubs in the top divisions. It happens everywhere, at every level, at clubs of all sizes.

You mentioned Barcelona. For an aspiring young player with talent, there are in fact a multitude of options for where to play - outside of the two obvious in Espanyol and FCB. Take Cornella FC for example. They are a small professional club in the suburbs of Barcelona. They are not "swimming in money." They play in the 3rd division, in a stadium that only holds 1500. But they have ambition, and they have a youth academy, and it's not pay-to-play. When Jordi Alba got cut from La Masia as a youth player, that's where he went. He began his youth career at another 3rd division club in Catalonia, L' Hospitalet. Also, not pay-to-play. It is the same everywhere. Iniesta started at Albacete, a bigger club than Cornella or Hopsitalet, but also currently in the 3rd division. Not pay to play. David Villa spent most of his youth career at a club called Langreo, in Asturia. 4th division professional club with a youth academy that is not pay to play.

Enough of Spain, let's look at France. Take AAS Sarcelles as an example. Never heard of them? Not surprising. They are a tiny professional club that plays in the suburbs of Paris, in a stadium that holds only 2000. They play in a regional league, somewhere below the top 5 divisions in France. But they have ambition, and they have a youth academy, full of mostly poor African immigrants from their community. It is not pay-to-play. If it was, Riyad Mahrez most definitely would not have been able to afford it. Griezman played most of his youth career (prior to being scouted by Sociedad) at Club Maconnais. Founded in 1999, the club also plays in a regional league, but is working its way up the pyramid through promotion and relegation. I think one more promotion and they will be in the national leagues - 5th division. Also, not pay-to-play.

And no, we are not just talking about Europe. South American academies are not pay-to-play either. Look at DC United's own Luciano Acosta. As a teenager he played for Boca Jrs -not pay-to-play but that's one of those superclubs swimming in money, sponsors, history, etc.... But Acosta didn't start off playing for Boca. He was only picked up by them at about age 13. Before then he was not considered good enough. So up to U12 he played his youth football for Club Communicaciones - another tiny professional club that plays in the "regionalized 3rd division of the Argentine football system." Not pay to play.

Look, you seem to have confused me with one of those zealots on Twitter who posits that pro/rel as some kind of "magic bullet" which will fix everything that is wrong with youth soccer development in this country all by itself. That is not me.

But when someone asks a question about why youth soccer development in the US is primarily pay to play, while in other countries around the world it isn't, the answer has to start with the reality that most of the professional level training in the rest of the world is conducted by professional clubs, who fund that training themselves rather than charge parents thousands of dollars a year, because they believe it is in their economic self interest to do so. And if you want to understand why so many clubs around the world - big and small - believe it is in their economic self interest to invest in youth training, you have to look at what market forces are in place that leads them to believe there will be a return on their investment. Again, I am not saying that pro/rel is the only reason for that. Training compensation and solidarity payments are critical to the survival of many of these small clubs, and they could not go on doing what they do without them. But the fact that the rest of the world has independent clubs competing against one another in an open market, while we do not, is undeniably a part of the answer.

And for all your club name dropping acumen the system you describe simply is not an option for typical players. Most players, 98% of soccer playing kids are in a pay to play setup much like our own.

We have this "college develops" mentality because it "works for football and basketball". Pro soccer just is not developed enough here. D.C. United does have an academy but there simply is not enough professional club saturation in the U.S. to support the club academy model. How many Premier League Clubs are in London alone? And look at your list of second and third division clubs in Europe.

With just two small pro leagues in the U.S. What would be the point of Pro/relegation? And what would it accomplish developmentally at youth age among amature youth clubs?

What you wish for isn't wrong but it simply is not sustainable here yet. In time it may be.

[Anonymous]

And most of these clubs are under no illusion that they're going to be promoted to the top levels. They have no resources to build the facilities they need. (Yes, I know, Eibar -- but that's a massive exception.)

These clubs are basically like the Richmond Kickers. They have a small pro team atop a youth development pyramid.

To get more clubs like that, I'd agree that a solidarity payment/training compensation system would certainly help. But pro/rel really isn't the key. Far from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, but that still doesn't answer the question. Barcelona, Madrid and Ajax aren't the only clubs who don't have pay-to-play. It is not just superclubs that fund youth academies. It is not even just clubs in the top divisions. It happens everywhere, at every level, at clubs of all sizes.

You mentioned Barcelona. For an aspiring young player with talent, there are in fact a multitude of options for where to play - outside of the two obvious in Espanyol and FCB. Take Cornella FC for example. They are a small professional club in the suburbs of Barcelona. They are not "swimming in money." They play in the 3rd division, in a stadium that only holds 1500. But they have ambition, and they have a youth academy, and it's not pay-to-play. When Jordi Alba got cut from La Masia as a youth player, that's where he went. He began his youth career at another 3rd division club in Catalonia, L' Hospitalet. Also, not pay-to-play. It is the same everywhere. Iniesta started at Albacete, a bigger club than Cornella or Hopsitalet, but also currently in the 3rd division. Not pay to play. David Villa spent most of his youth career at a club called Langreo, in Asturia. 4th division professional club with a youth academy that is not pay to play.

Enough of Spain, let's look at France. Take AAS Sarcelles as an example. Never heard of them? Not surprising. They are a tiny professional club that plays in the suburbs of Paris, in a stadium that holds only 2000. They play in a regional league, somewhere below the top 5 divisions in France. But they have ambition, and they have a youth academy, full of mostly poor African immigrants from their community. It is not pay-to-play. If it was, Riyad Mahrez most definitely would not have been able to afford it. Griezman played most of his youth career (prior to being scouted by Sociedad) at Club Maconnais. Founded in 1999, the club also plays in a regional league, but is working its way up the pyramid through promotion and relegation. I think one more promotion and they will be in the national leagues - 5th division. Also, not pay-to-play.

And no, we are not just talking about Europe. South American academies are not pay-to-play either. Look at DC United's own Luciano Acosta. As a teenager he played for Boca Jrs -not pay-to-play but that's one of those superclubs swimming in money, sponsors, history, etc.... But Acosta didn't start off playing for Boca. He was only picked up by them at about age 13. Before then he was not considered good enough. So up to U12 he played his youth football for Club Communicaciones - another tiny professional club that plays in the "regionalized 3rd division of the Argentine football system." Not pay to play.

Look, you seem to have confused me with one of those zealots on Twitter who posits that pro/rel as some kind of "magic bullet" which will fix everything that is wrong with youth soccer development in this country all by itself. That is not me.

But when someone asks a question about why youth soccer development in the US is primarily pay to play, while in other countries around the world it isn't, the answer has to start with the reality that most of the professional level training in the rest of the world is conducted by professional clubs, who fund that training themselves rather than charge parents thousands of dollars a year, because they believe it is in their economic self interest to do so. And if you want to understand why so many clubs around the world - big and small - believe it is in their economic self interest to invest in youth training, you have to look at what market forces are in place that leads them to believe there will be a return on their investment. Again, I am not saying that pro/rel is the only reason for that. Training compensation and solidarity payments are critical to the survival of many of these small clubs, and they could not go on doing what they do without them. But the fact that the rest of the world has independent clubs competing against one another in an open market, while we do not, is undeniably a part of the answer.

Here is the link to a "sign on form" for a typical Youth Soccer Club in the UK:

http://www.ksports-fc.co.uk/clubdocuments.aspx

While the fee isn't listed it clearly states that you must pay the club fee. Most likely it is variable per year, much like here. But again, this is a pretty typical youth soccer environment. The idea that kids in soccer nation play for free is ludicrous.

Club link:
http://www.ksports-fc.co.uk/default.aspx

Again, I have friends who live in other parts of Europe and their Youth System is not so different from ours. If you are a awesome player you may get to play at an academy for free, but you could be asked to leave within a week too. The reality of youth systems does not really match the utopia that you describe.

And considering the level of talent in many of these countries we are not talking the top 1%, more like the top .05% that have a sustained free youth soccer career.

I'm not saying these things to defend our system but merely to point out that the idea of "pay to play" is not a unique to us and for most soccer playing kids elsewhere it is actually quite typical.

I would say that the areas we need to focus more on are:

1. Support any local professional soccer team, regardless of level. Without their growth, none of these academies will ever take off. These clubs need to be financially viable to even begin offering a free academy youth system.

2. Admit that College is not a development path. It is a amateur sport and we mistakenly correlate it's success as a development path to the NFL and NBA as well as occasionally the NHL to mean that it would do the same for soccer.

3. Change our talent identification mindset. We pick kids that are "good now" and play games to "win now". These kids are usually big and athletic and while that can account for a lot it is not a predictor of future soccer success in the way that it is with other sports. Since, as a nation we have no experience in developing any world class players i really don't think our youth coaches would know it when they see it simply because they have never really seen it at a youth level to even recognize the "it" factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here is the link to a "sign on form" for a typical Youth Soccer Club in the UK:

http://www.ksports-fc.co.uk/clubdocuments.aspx

While the fee isn't listed it clearly states that you must pay the club fee. Most likely it is variable per year, much like here. But again, this is a pretty typical youth soccer environment. The idea that kids in soccer nation play for free is ludicrous.

LOL, you are too funny. So caught up in defending your position that you don't even bother to read the links you post. From that website, click and download the doc titled: "signing on form for new players". This is what it says:

"Annual Membership Fee £30.00


Match Fees Under7/Under 8 Teams £3 per player per match
Under 9/Under 12 Teams £4 per player per match
Under 13/Under 18 teams £5 per player per match

K SPORTS FOOTBALL CLUB (YOUTH SECTION)
32 Freelands Road, Snodland, Kent ME16 0BB."

Those are rec fees, for a rec program, and if you ask your other friends who live in Europe what they are paying for their kids football, if they aren't in a professional academy you're going to find that their costs are similar to what someone here would pay for a rec program. It varies from place to place depending in large part on the level of government support for "Sport and Health" type programs, but you aren't likely to find many people paying significantly more per year than a typical rec player in club like VYS for example - a few hundred bucks per year.

That is not at all what people are talking about when they bring up "pay to play" in the context of a discussion about youth soccer in the US, and you know it.

Here the better players will be playing $1500-$3000 per year, and the best players can end up spending considerably more than that. The fact that most MLS Academies are not charging any more is a huge step in the right direction, but considering the immense size and diversity of our country, 20 clubs is barely a drop in the bucket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is the link to a "sign on form" for a typical Youth Soccer Club in the UK:

http://www.ksports-fc.co.uk/clubdocuments.aspx

While the fee isn't listed it clearly states that you must pay the club fee. Most likely it is variable per year, much like here. But again, this is a pretty typical youth soccer environment. The idea that kids in soccer nation play for free is ludicrous.

LOL, you are too funny. So caught up in defending your position that you don't even bother to read the links you post. From that website, click and download the doc titled: "signing on form for new players". This is what it says:

"Annual Membership Fee £30.00


Match Fees Under7/Under 8 Teams £3 per player per match
Under 9/Under 12 Teams £4 per player per match
Under 13/Under 18 teams £5 per player per match

K SPORTS FOOTBALL CLUB (YOUTH SECTION)
32 Freelands Road, Snodland, Kent ME16 0BB."

Those are rec fees, for a rec program, and if you ask your other friends who live in Europe what they are paying for their kids football, if they aren't in a professional academy you're going to find that their costs are similar to what someone here would pay for a rec program. It varies from place to place depending in large part on the level of government support for "Sport and Health" type programs, but you aren't likely to find many people paying significantly more per year than a typical rec player in club like VYS for example - a few hundred bucks per year.

That is not at all what people are talking about when they bring up "pay to play" in the context of a discussion about youth soccer in the US, and you know it.

Here the better players will be playing $1500-$3000 per year, and the best players can end up spending considerably more than that. The fact that most MLS Academies are not charging any more is a huge step in the right direction, but considering the immense size and diversity of our country, 20 clubs is barely a drop in the bucket.

A FEW hundred for rec soccer? No. $163.
http://www.vys.org/Programs/Spring/index_E.html

But yes, most programs of that nature in Europe are indeed rec programs, coached by parents just like they are here.

Which is not to say that you can't climb the ladder from there. Former Spirit coach Mark Parsons played what we would call "rec" soccer in England but wound up making it to semipro ball before moving into coaching at a young age.

More serious soccer overseas is generally driven by professional or semipro clubs with their academies. The money trickles down from the top. Big clubs have no trouble footing the bill for their own academies, and they pay a lot of money to buy players from smaller clubs, who then invest in their academies and occasionally buy from smaller clubs, and so on.

In some countries, these programs are supplemented by federal programs.

We're a long, long way from getting that sort of thing to work here. The infrastructure that has built up for generations elsewhere is something MLS has been trying to do since the league nearly collapsed in 2001. And they're trying to do it in an environment in which soccer isn't the primary, secondary or tertiary sport, and soccer fans have scores of live games to watch from around the world on any given weekend. (If you get NBCSN along with Extra Time, you get more live Premier League games on TV and the Internet than the typical English residence.)

Everyone says we need to end pay-to-play. They usually get quiet when you ask how they plan to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is the link to a "sign on form" for a typical Youth Soccer Club in the UK:

http://www.ksports-fc.co.uk/clubdocuments.aspx

While the fee isn't listed it clearly states that you must pay the club fee. Most likely it is variable per year, much like here. But again, this is a pretty typical youth soccer environment. The idea that kids in soccer nation play for free is ludicrous.

LOL, you are too funny. So caught up in defending your position that you don't even bother to read the links you post. From that website, click and download the doc titled: "signing on form for new players". This is what it says:

"Annual Membership Fee £30.00


Match Fees Under7/Under 8 Teams £3 per player per match
Under 9/Under 12 Teams £4 per player per match
Under 13/Under 18 teams £5 per player per match

K SPORTS FOOTBALL CLUB (YOUTH SECTION)
32 Freelands Road, Snodland, Kent ME16 0BB."

Those are rec fees, for a rec program, and if you ask your other friends who live in Europe what they are paying for their kids football, if they aren't in a professional academy you're going to find that their costs are similar to what someone here would pay for a rec program. It varies from place to place depending in large part on the level of government support for "Sport and Health" type programs, but you aren't likely to find many people paying significantly more per year than a typical rec player in club like VYS for example - a few hundred bucks per year.

That is not at all what people are talking about when they bring up "pay to play" in the context of a discussion about youth soccer in the US, and you know it.

Here the better players will be playing $1500-$3000 per year, and the best players can end up spending considerably more than that. The fact that most MLS Academies are not charging any more is a huge step in the right direction, but considering the immense size and diversity of our country, 20 clubs is barely a drop in the bucket.

A FEW hundred for rec soccer? No. $163.
http://www.vys.org/Programs/Spring/index_E.html

But yes, most programs of that nature in Europe are indeed rec programs, coached by parents just like they are here.

Which is not to say that you can't climb the ladder from there. Former Spirit coach Mark Parsons played what we would call "rec" soccer in England but wound up making it to semipro ball before moving into coaching at a young age.

More serious soccer overseas is generally driven by professional or semipro clubs with their academies. The money trickles down from the top. Big clubs have no trouble footing the bill for their own academies, and they pay a lot of money to buy players from smaller clubs, who then invest in their academies and occasionally buy from smaller clubs, and so on.

In some countries, these programs are supplemented by federal programs.

We're a long, long way from getting that sort of thing to work here. The infrastructure that has built up for generations elsewhere is something MLS has been trying to do since the league nearly collapsed in 2001. And they're trying to do it in an environment in which soccer isn't the primary, secondary or tertiary sport, and soccer fans have scores of live games to watch from around the world on any given weekend. (If you get NBCSN along with Extra Time, you get more live Premier League games on TV and the Internet than the typical English residence.)

Everyone says we need to end pay-to-play. They usually get quiet when you ask how they plan to pay for it.

Yes, we get it, it is a great system. The problem is MLS is not profitable enough and our professional system is not deep enough to support what Europe does. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

We are not saturated with all these 2nd, 3rd, and 4th division professional clubs that can offer training. So for now, it is either Pay to Play or nothing.

Support your local pro teams, watch soccer on TV, get your kids into following the pro game. Until our own professional soccer becomes relevant none of your dreams will come true.

[Anonymous]

So the question is, what are the achievable building blocks to get us as a nation closer to that professional development model?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is the link to a "sign on form" for a typical Youth Soccer Club in the UK:

http://www.ksports-fc.co.uk/clubdocuments.aspx

While the fee isn't listed it clearly states that you must pay the club fee. Most likely it is variable per year, much like here. But again, this is a pretty typical youth soccer environment. The idea that kids in soccer nation play for free is ludicrous.

LOL, you are too funny. So caught up in defending your position that you don't even bother to read the links you post. From that website, click and download the doc titled: "signing on form for new players". This is what it says:

"Annual Membership Fee £30.00


Match Fees Under7/Under 8 Teams £3 per player per match
Under 9/Under 12 Teams £4 per player per match
Under 13/Under 18 teams £5 per player per match

K SPORTS FOOTBALL CLUB (YOUTH SECTION)
32 Freelands Road, Snodland, Kent ME16 0BB."

Those are rec fees, for a rec program, and if you ask your other friends who live in Europe what they are paying for their kids football, if they aren't in a professional academy you're going to find that their costs are similar to what someone here would pay for a rec program. It varies from place to place depending in large part on the level of government support for "Sport and Health" type programs, but you aren't likely to find many people paying significantly more per year than a typical rec player in club like VYS for example - a few hundred bucks per year.

That is not at all what people are talking about when they bring up "pay to play" in the context of a discussion about youth soccer in the US, and you know it.

Here the better players will be playing $1500-$3000 per year, and the best players can end up spending considerably more than that. The fact that most MLS Academies are not charging any more is a huge step in the right direction, but considering the immense size and diversity of our country, 20 clubs is barely a drop in the bucket.

A FEW hundred for rec soccer? No. $163.
http://www.vys.org/Programs/Spring/index_E.html

But yes, most programs of that nature in Europe are indeed rec programs, coached by parents just like they are here.

Which is not to say that you can't climb the ladder from there. Former Spirit coach Mark Parsons played what we would call "rec" soccer in England but wound up making it to semipro ball before moving into coaching at a young age.

More serious soccer overseas is generally driven by professional or semipro clubs with their academies. The money trickles down from the top. Big clubs have no trouble footing the bill for their own academies, and they pay a lot of money to buy players from smaller clubs, who then invest in their academies and occasionally buy from smaller clubs, and so on.

In some countries, these programs are supplemented by federal programs.

We're a long, long way from getting that sort of thing to work here. The infrastructure that has built up for generations elsewhere is something MLS has been trying to do since the league nearly collapsed in 2001. And they're trying to do it in an environment in which soccer isn't the primary, secondary or tertiary sport, and soccer fans have scores of live games to watch from around the world on any given weekend. (If you get NBCSN along with Extra Time, you get more live Premier League games on TV and the Internet than the typical English residence.)

Everyone says we need to end pay-to-play. They usually get quiet when you ask how they plan to pay for it.

Yes, we get it, it is a great system. The problem is MLS is not profitable enough and our professional system is not deep enough to support what Europe does. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

We are not saturated with all these 2nd, 3rd, and 4th division professional clubs that can offer training. So for now, it is either Pay to Play or nothing.

Support your local pro teams, watch soccer on TV, get your kids into following the pro game. Until our own professional soccer becomes relevant none of your dreams will come true.

Um ... that was exactly the point I was making. Exactly.

[Anonymous]

No, you were big clubs, money trickles, blah, blah. I fell asleep...........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A FEW hundred for rec soccer? No. $163.
http://www.vys.org/Programs/Spring/index_E.html.

$163 per season for fall + spring = $326 per year.

So yes, it costs a few hundred dollars a year to play rec soccer here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, you were big clubs, money trickles, blah, blah. I fell asleep...........

OK then, when you wake up, please check the end of what I said:

We're a long, long way from getting that sort of thing to work here. The infrastructure that has built up for generations elsewhere is something MLS has been trying to do since the league nearly collapsed in 2001. And they're trying to do it in an environment in which soccer isn't the primary, secondary or tertiary sport, and soccer fans have scores of live games to watch from around the world on any given weekend. (If you get NBCSN along with Extra Time, you get more live Premier League games on TV and the Internet than the typical English residence.)

Everyone says we need to end pay-to-play. They usually get quiet when you ask how they plan to pay for it.

I'll use smaller words from now on. I didn't realize coaches were reading. My bad.