Youth Soccer in rest of the world

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lack of ability to pay youth clubs training compensation and solidarity payments is because of the players, not the higher ups

Really? Then why did PA Classics did not receive any training compensation or solidarity payments for Pulisic, while Dortmund did? Or why Crossfire Premier did not get any payments for developing Yedlin? Educate yourself. https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2019/1/2/18164986/christian-pulisic-transfer-chelsea-solidarity-payments-usmnt

[Anonymous]

in Brazil they have a couple of layers of Professional Academy which are for the most part fully funded.

After that you have soccer schools which parents pay for that are run by former professional players where they teach the game and have coaches who are paid for it.

After that layer, it's volunteer coaches but it's Brazil so they probably still know what they're doing just as much as the soccer schools

The only track towards the professionals is within an academy. If you are below that and you are aspiring to become a pro, you need a reality check if you can't even break into the bottom level of Academy with a smaller club

[Anonymous]

In factor in that most kids in professional academies don't even make it to the professional level at the end of the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yep. no government funded soccer here except in the public school system for HS and college soccer.

Oh stop. Necessary things like health care triggers people into acting like we will become a socialistic nightmare and you think free soccer is gonna happen?

In Europe, national associations. which are non-government entities, sponsor/invest in youth soccer. They also have independently run professional clubs that compete in open league. The clubs invest in youth soccer through their academies and transfer fees to smaller clubs. There 's no socialistic nightmare with the soccer there.

Free things in America are Socialism!

There's nothing free. Even "free" breakfast at a hotel is hidden in the higher cost you pay for your hotel room. Someone has to pay for free things either through paying higher taxes or higher cost of other items.

And the reality is, soccer is not culturally important enough to be "free".

And as a general attitude we do throw socialism around against anything that is a social good but collectively paid.

youth soccer in other places is not funded through socialism. The money flows from the top down through compensation payments. It is brutally capitalistic and if you dont have the talent that will pay off later, the system will not invest in you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:yep. no government funded soccer here except in the public school system for HS and college soccer.

Oh stop. Necessary things like health care triggers people into acting like we will become a socialistic nightmare and you think free soccer is gonna happen?

In Europe, national associations. which are non-government entities, sponsor/invest in youth soccer. They also have independently run professional clubs that compete in open league. The clubs invest in youth soccer through their academies and transfer fees to smaller clubs. There 's no socialistic nightmare with the soccer there.

Free things in America are Socialism!

There's nothing free. Even "free" breakfast at a hotel is hidden in the higher cost you pay for your hotel room. Someone has to pay for free things either through paying higher taxes or higher cost of other items.

And the reality is, soccer is not culturally important enough to be "free".

And as a general attitude we do throw socialism around against anything that is a social good but collectively paid.

youth soccer in other places is not funded through socialism. The money flows from the top down through compensation payments. It is brutally capitalistic and if you dont have the talent that will pay off later, the system will not invest in you.

Everybody knows this. The joke and point is lost on you. The fact that you are treating it like a serious point means you should step back about 5 steps and take a breath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lack of ability to pay youth clubs training compensation and solidarity payments is because of the players, not the higher ups

Really? Then why did PA Classics did not receive any training compensation or solidarity payments for Pulisic, while Dortmund did? Or why Crossfire Premier did not get any payments for developing Yedlin? Educate yourself. https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2019/1/2/18164986/christian-pulisic-transfer-chelsea-solidarity-payments-usmnt

Wait, educate myself? You gotta learn to read dude, the entire point of the article you posted is that it is the MLS players who are against the fees. Read your own article, "[t]he MLS Players Association has been vehemently against the idea of abiding by FIFA solidarity payments" It was the MLS Players that are against transfer and solidarity payments and the reason US youth clubs do not receive them, while overseas clubs do get them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lack of ability to pay youth clubs training compensation and solidarity payments is because of the players, not the higher ups

Really? Then why did PA Classics did not receive any training compensation or solidarity payments for Pulisic, while Dortmund did? Or why Crossfire Premier did not get any payments for developing Yedlin? Educate yourself. https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2019/1/2/18164986/christian-pulisic-transfer-chelsea-solidarity-payments-usmnt

Wait, educate myself? You gotta learn to read dude, the entire point of the article you posted is that it is the MLS players who are against the fees. Read your own article, "[t]he MLS Players Association has been vehemently against the idea of abiding by FIFA solidarity payments" It was the MLS Players that are against transfer and solidarity payments and the reason US youth clubs do not receive them, while overseas clubs do get them.

No, transfer payments always existed and are not at issue here. Historically, USSF claimed that the US law prohibited them from allowing training compensation and solidarity payments, which was a bunch of bull. Once the young DA players started to bypass MLS and go directly to Europe, MLS realized that it was losing money. As soon as it happened, the USSF had a complete about face and allowed training and solidarity payments but with MLS is the sole beneficiary. The youth clubs don't benefit. The players opposed the change, which has been implemented despite their opposition, because they lost the financial edge they used to have when marketing themselves to European clubs (i.e., no out of pocket expense for training fees).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: in Brazil they have a couple of layers of Professional Academy which are for the most part fully funded.

After that you have soccer schools which parents pay for that are run by former professional players where they teach the game and have coaches who are paid for it.

After that layer, it's volunteer coaches but it's Brazil so they probably still know what they're doing just as much as the soccer schools

The only track towards the professionals is within an academy. If you are below that and you are aspiring to become a pro, you need a reality check if you can't even break into the bottom level of Academy with a smaller club

Brazil also has a much deeper club system because it doesn't have the federation-supported MLS monopoly we have here, so clubs can both earn money from player development and earn promotion to the top level. So there are smaller pro clubs with academies that kids can try out for. Sometimes the clubs even make it to the top level (Chapecoense) because there are no artificial barriers to entry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it makes sense you don't need to write a book to explain it. This system works well in the rest of the world. The US is an aberration from the norm and given our population and how much money is spent on soccer infrastructure and training, the results of current US system are abysmal. You can put 2 and 2 together without having to write a book. As Zlatan said in reference to the top of the US soccer pyramid, the system is sh*t and those who run it do not have any interest in improving it.

+1

The USSF doesn't care about your kid, or any other parent's. The federation's top priority is the development of MLS and expanding its multimillion-dollar surplus. And the "pay-to-pay" clubs (and leagues, such as ECNL and DA) are only interested in your kid as a customer insofar as they can profit from him/her.

The truth is there's no system more socialist than the US system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:Generally, youth soccer in the rest of the world has two levels:

1. Pro academy with costs paid by the club
2. Youth program with minimal costs, like rec soccer here

Here, we have this:

1. Pro academy with costs paid by the club
2. "Travel" soccer in which we all pay $2K-$gazillionK
3. Rec soccer with minimal costs

So when people campaign on an "end pay-to-play" platform, it's actually a little complicated. What you'd have to do is eliminate that middle tier. And it's going to be awfully difficult to do that -- imagine telling parents, "No, you can't spend $5K so little Suzie can be on a team that's better than your rec teams."

Incidentally, I'm starting to do some research on national team pay. What I'm finding so far is that U.S. teams get a good bit more than overseas teams. Does that leave the federation with more money to spend on youth programs? I'm trying to find out.

When people campaign on an "end pay to play" platform, they aren't taking about the middle and lower tiers, they are talking about ther top tier - aspiring professionals.

The difference is that while our entire country has less than 25 funded pro academies, other countries whose entire population is less than the number of youth soccer players in this country, have 3-4 times that number.

Independent clubs competing in an open market (promotion/relegation).

Training Compensation.

Solidarity Payments.

Federation involvement to mandate youth academies at pro clubs, and set standards.

Federation involvement to provide quality and accessible coaching education.

That's what it takes.

And American caring about soccer.

Please. Give that myth a break. More than half the elementary and middle school kids in my neighborhood play soccer. When they're not out playing pickup games they're doing FIFA '19 on the Xbox.

Americans do care about soccer. The problem is the USSF doesn't care about American soccer players, just the MLS team owners. They're too busy trying to figure out how to get Messi to sign for Miami to care whether American kids can play at a higher level.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: in Brazil they have a couple of layers of Professional Academy which are for the most part fully funded.

After that you have soccer schools which parents pay for that are run by former professional players where they teach the game and have coaches who are paid for it.

After that layer, it's volunteer coaches but it's Brazil so they probably still know what they're doing just as much as the soccer schools

The only track towards the professionals is within an academy. If you are below that and you are aspiring to become a pro, you need a reality check if you can't even break into the bottom level of Academy with a smaller club

Brazil also has a much deeper club system because it doesn't have the federation-supported MLS monopoly we have here, so clubs can both earn money from player development and earn promotion to the top level. So there are smaller pro clubs with academies that kids can try out for. Sometimes the clubs even make it to the top level (Chapecoense) because there are no artificial barriers to entry.

Right -- because before MLS came along and ruined everything, we had a thriving set of professional leagues with full-fledged academies.

OK, I'll admit MLS advanced the cause of soccer in the US. Now please give us your expert opinion: What's the statute of limitations on how long the US soccer universe has to revolve around the league and the profits of its owners?

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: in Brazil they have a couple of layers of Professional Academy which are for the most part fully funded.

After that you have soccer schools which parents pay for that are run by former professional players where they teach the game and have coaches who are paid for it.

After that layer, it's volunteer coaches but it's Brazil so they probably still know what they're doing just as much as the soccer schools

The only track towards the professionals is within an academy. If you are below that and you are aspiring to become a pro, you need a reality check if you can't even break into the bottom level of Academy with a smaller club

Brazil also has a much deeper club system because it doesn't have the federation-supported MLS monopoly we have here, so clubs can both earn money from player development and earn promotion to the top level. So there are smaller pro clubs with academies that kids can try out for. Sometimes the clubs even make it to the top level (Chapecoense) because there are no artificial barriers to entry.

Right -- because before MLS came along and ruined everything, we had a thriving set of professional leagues with full-fledged academies.

OK, I'll admit MLS advanced the cause of soccer in the US. Now please give us your expert opinion: What's the statute of limitations on how long the US soccer universe has to revolve around the league and the profits of its owners?

We don't really know whether they're profiting. They claim they're not and that everything they're getting is reinvested into the league. Not entirely sure that's true, but I'd imagine many of the clubs have not yet paid off their stadium construction costs or expansion fees. (Or, for older clubs, the capital calls they needed to get through the 2001-03 period.)

Some clubs outside MLS have professional teams and academies (one is just down I-95 from us). But so far, the people willing to invest in soccer have sought the cost-containment strategies that MLS and USL use. There were opportunities to have a more open system with some sort of NASL-NPSL cooperation, and Peter Wilt was hoping NISA would be the bridge, but it didn't happen.

At this point, it's more likely that USL will continue to solidify and then run more academies as well.

In the current climate, though, it's unlikely that clubs are going to pour a lot of money into youth academies if they're threatened with relegation -- which is true in England to an extent as well.

If a club is relegated, they don't have money to pay high priced contracts and player from youth academies get more opportunities. The academies are fully funded regardless of whether it is the top division or one of the lower divisions. USSF has created one club closed system, which consists of the club MLS. There is absolutely no incentive to invest in lower divisions. That's why folks like Stu Holden invest into second division in Spain rather than second division in the US and his team just got promoted to the top division.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: in Brazil they have a couple of layers of Professional Academy which are for the most part fully funded.

After that you have soccer schools which parents pay for that are run by former professional players where they teach the game and have coaches who are paid for it.

After that layer, it's volunteer coaches but it's Brazil so they probably still know what they're doing just as much as the soccer schools

The only track towards the professionals is within an academy. If you are below that and you are aspiring to become a pro, you need a reality check if you can't even break into the bottom level of Academy with a smaller club

Brazil also has a much deeper club system because it doesn't have the federation-supported MLS monopoly we have here, so clubs can both earn money from player development and earn promotion to the top level. So there are smaller pro clubs with academies that kids can try out for. Sometimes the clubs even make it to the top level (Chapecoense) because there are no artificial barriers to entry.

Right -- because before MLS came along and ruined everything, we had a thriving set of professional leagues with full-fledged academies.

OK, I'll admit MLS advanced the cause of soccer in the US. Now please give us your expert opinion: What's the statute of limitations on how long the US soccer universe has to revolve around the league and the profits of its owners?

We don't really know whether they're profiting. They claim they're not and that everything they're getting is reinvested into the league. Not entirely sure that's true, but I'd imagine many of the clubs have not yet paid off their stadium construction costs or expansion fees. (Or, for older clubs, the capital calls they needed to get through the 2001-03 period.)

Some clubs outside MLS have professional teams and academies (one is just down I-95 from us). But so far, the people willing to invest in soccer have sought the cost-containment strategies that MLS and USL use. There were opportunities to have a more open system with some sort of NASL-NPSL cooperation, and Peter Wilt was hoping NISA would be the bridge, but it didn't happen.

At this point, it's more likely that USL will continue to solidify and then run more academies as well.

In the current climate, though, it's unlikely that clubs are going to pour a lot of money into youth academies if they're threatened with relegation -- which is true in England to an extent as well.

The obvious #1 culprit here is USSF: They have money they aren't spending and certification authority they're not using to expand the soccer universe in the US. The obvious first solution is to divorce them from MLS, because the league's interests are widely divergent from the interests of US soccer in general.

But I'm not gonna cry for MLS. Their "cost-containment" strategies include expansion at the expense of other leagues (aided by the USSF), which is basically a giant Ponzi scheme for new owners. And let's not forget that they are the reason (also aided by the USSF) why clubs that do develop players don't get any money from contracts and transfer fees if they turn out to be valuable pros.

Bottom line: The system is broken. And the smart thing is to look at what's working elsewhere and copy it. USSF should create a pro/rel system and MLS can choose to participate or not. I don't care. My son has been playing soccer since he was 5 and he has zero interest in MLS. And neither do I.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: in Brazil they have a couple of layers of Professional Academy which are for the most part fully funded.

After that you have soccer schools which parents pay for that are run by former professional players where they teach the game and have coaches who are paid for it.

After that layer, it's volunteer coaches but it's Brazil so they probably still know what they're doing just as much as the soccer schools

The only track towards the professionals is within an academy. If you are below that and you are aspiring to become a pro, you need a reality check if you can't even break into the bottom level of Academy with a smaller club

Brazil also has a much deeper club system because it doesn't have the federation-supported MLS monopoly we have here, so clubs can both earn money from player development and earn promotion to the top level. So there are smaller pro clubs with academies that kids can try out for. Sometimes the clubs even make it to the top level (Chapecoense) because there are no artificial barriers to entry.

Right -- because before MLS came along and ruined everything, we had a thriving set of professional leagues with full-fledged academies.

OK, I'll admit MLS advanced the cause of soccer in the US. Now please give us your expert opinion: What's the statute of limitations on how long the US soccer universe has to revolve around the league and the profits of its owners?

We don't really know whether they're profiting. They claim they're not and that everything they're getting is reinvested into the league. Not entirely sure that's true, but I'd imagine many of the clubs have not yet paid off their stadium construction costs or expansion fees. (Or, for older clubs, the capital calls they needed to get through the 2001-03 period.)

Some clubs outside MLS have professional teams and academies (one is just down I-95 from us). But so far, the people willing to invest in soccer have sought the cost-containment strategies that MLS and USL use. There were opportunities to have a more open system with some sort of NASL-NPSL cooperation, and Peter Wilt was hoping NISA would be the bridge, but it didn't happen.

At this point, it's more likely that USL will continue to solidify and then run more academies as well.

In the current climate, though, it's unlikely that clubs are going to pour a lot of money into youth academies if they're threatened with relegation -- which is true in England to an extent as well.

If a club is relegated, they don't have money to pay high priced contracts and player from youth academies get more opportunities. The academies are fully funded regardless of whether it is the top division or one of the lower divisions.

Unless they get relegated out of League Two. Or unless they're Huddersfield. https://rantingsoccerdad.com/2017/11/09/the-myth-of-promotion-relegation-and-youth-development-continued/

More about pro/rel and its impact here: https://rantingsoccerdad.com/all-about-promotion-relegation/

But I'm not gonna cry for MLS. Their "cost-containment" strategies include expansion at the expense of other leagues (aided by the USSF),

If tons of people turned up to fund a pro/rel pyramid, it would exist. USSF didn't try to stop pro/rel when USL tried it in the 1990s. Why would they try to stop it now?

USSF should create a pro/rel system and MLS can choose to participate or not.

Not really up to USSF. Form the league. Get sanctioned. (If NISA could do it, it's not really that hard.) Start small and build the pyramid from there.

But instead, everyone is racing to spend $200 million to join MLS.

I can't say I fully understand why they're doing that instead of building something else. But that's the way it's happening.

Huddersfield is an exception, not the rule. The rest of your examples are the clubs that were relegated to the fifth tier. I would not be surprised if third tier clubs in England invest more in their academies than MLS franchises do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: in Brazil they have a couple of layers of Professional Academy which are for the most part fully funded.

After that you have soccer schools which parents pay for that are run by former professional players where they teach the game and have coaches who are paid for it.

After that layer, it's volunteer coaches but it's Brazil so they probably still know what they're doing just as much as the soccer schools

The only track towards the professionals is within an academy. If you are below that and you are aspiring to become a pro, you need a reality check if you can't even break into the bottom level of Academy with a smaller club

Brazil also has a much deeper club system because it doesn't have the federation-supported MLS monopoly we have here, so clubs can both earn money from player development and earn promotion to the top level. So there are smaller pro clubs with academies that kids can try out for. Sometimes the clubs even make it to the top level (Chapecoense) because there are no artificial barriers to entry.

Right -- because before MLS came along and ruined everything, we had a thriving set of professional leagues with full-fledged academies.

OK, I'll admit MLS advanced the cause of soccer in the US. Now please give us your expert opinion: What's the statute of limitations on how long the US soccer universe has to revolve around the league and the profits of its owners?

We don't really know whether they're profiting. They claim they're not and that everything they're getting is reinvested into the league. Not entirely sure that's true, but I'd imagine many of the clubs have not yet paid off their stadium construction costs or expansion fees. (Or, for older clubs, the capital calls they needed to get through the 2001-03 period.)

Some clubs outside MLS have professional teams and academies (one is just down I-95 from us). But so far, the people willing to invest in soccer have sought the cost-containment strategies that MLS and USL use. There were opportunities to have a more open system with some sort of NASL-NPSL cooperation, and Peter Wilt was hoping NISA would be the bridge, but it didn't happen.

At this point, it's more likely that USL will continue to solidify and then run more academies as well.

In the current climate, though, it's unlikely that clubs are going to pour a lot of money into youth academies if they're threatened with relegation -- which is true in England to an extent as well.

If a club is relegated, they don't have money to pay high priced contracts and player from youth academies get more opportunities. The academies are fully funded regardless of whether it is the top division or one of the lower divisions.

Unless they get relegated out of League Two. Or unless they're Huddersfield. https://rantingsoccerdad.com/2017/11/09/the-myth-of-promotion-relegation-and-youth-development-continued/

More about pro/rel and its impact here: https://rantingsoccerdad.com/all-about-promotion-relegation/

But I'm not gonna cry for MLS. Their "cost-containment" strategies include expansion at the expense of other leagues (aided by the USSF),

If tons of people turned up to fund a pro/rel pyramid, it would exist. USSF didn't try to stop pro/rel when USL tried it in the 1990s. Why would they try to stop it now?

USSF should create a pro/rel system and MLS can choose to participate or not.

Not really up to USSF. Form the league. Get sanctioned. (If NISA could do it, it's not really that hard.) Start small and build the pyramid from there.

But instead, everyone is racing to spend $200 million to join MLS.

I can't say I fully understand why they're doing that instead of building something else. But that's the way it's happening.

Huddersfield is an exception, not the rule. The rest of your examples are the clubs that were relegated to the fifth tier. I would not be surprised if third tier clubs in England invest more in their academies than MLS franchises do.

Why should MLS franchises invest in their academies? They get most of their players for free. Either their parents pay thousands of $$$ to develop them through the club system or they draft them out college.