Youth Soccer in rest of the world

[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.

Public subsidies have a lot to do with it. Especially for stadiums. It's the same con job the NFL has used on taxpayers for decades.

https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/dc-taxpayers-fund-nearly-half-new-stadium-costs

https://www.wcpo.com/news/government/local-politics/heres-how-much-other-cities-have-paid-to-help-build-mls-soccer-stadiums

[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.

Public subsidies have a lot to do with it. Especially for stadiums. It's the same con job the NFL has used on taxpayers for decades.

https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/dc-taxpayers-fund-nearly-half-new-stadium-costs

https://www.wcpo.com/news/government/local-politics/heres-how-much-other-cities-have-paid-to-help-build-mls-soccer-stadiums

Considering that MLS isn't even the most-watched soccer league in the US, I don't understand why USSF doesn't cut loose from its influence and concentrate fully on player development. That's the really big issue.

https://worldsoccertalk.com/2019/04/10/mls-fails-close-tv-ratings-gap-premier-league-liga-mx/

[Anonymous]

Spoiled Snowflakes vs. Hard Working...

Too many tournaments here in the US (6 per year) on top of league play versus Europe who pays four tournaments at the most and league play.

The result is the US players care less about winning and giving 100%. That’s how Trinidad and Tobago happened and it will continue. The woman will probably be much less successful in 8 years as well.

If you don’t believe me, just look at what AAU Basketball has done to our kids...

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Check out the national team. More and more players who went through MLS academies and signed as teenagers. If they're any good, the clubs can end up getting transfer fees -- Vancouver got $22 million for Alphonso Davies.

The Canadian clubs also get solidarity pay and training compensation, much to the MLS players union's chagrin. Eventually, U.S. clubs will as well, which will be great news for, say, FC Dallas.

(Yes, I know the national team isn't very good. We could always start sending everyone through college again.)

Public subsidies have a lot to do with it. Especially for stadiums. It's the same con job the NFL has used on taxpayers for decades.

https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/dc-taxp...-nearly-half-new-stadium-costs

https://www.wcpo.com/news/government/local-politic...help-build-mls-soccer-stadiums

Yes and no. NFL stadiums tend to include at least *some* contribution from the team, while MLS clubs typically pay most of the cost. D.C. United built Audi Field, but the land swaps were complicated, to say the least. It was still better than MLB extorting $600m out of DC to build Nationals Park, in which I still will not set foot.

We should probably just ask sports teams to play in 10,000-seat venues enhanced for TV viewing, anyway. (I'm not sure that I'm kidding.)

Considering that MLS isn't even the most-watched soccer league in the US, I don't understand why USSF doesn't cut loose from its influence and concentrate fully on player development. That's the really big issue.

https://worldsoccertalk.com/2019/04/10/mls-fails-c...gs-gap-premier-league-liga-mx/

How would they do player development with no pro league? Genuinely curious.

1. Overdependence on MLS players (along with an MLS coach who's in waaay over his head) is a big reason why the USMNT sucks.

2. While it may be true that the share of private financing is increasing due to increased taxpayer resistance, it's laughable to say that NFL stadiums aren't still heavily dependent on public financing. As for MLS, the current figure is 1/3 of the total spent on soccer-only stadiums comes from public money.

3. How will USSF do player development? First of all, we have more than one pro league. Secondly, they are sitting on a massive pot of money. They could at least do what you yourself mentioned other countries do, like subsidize coaching education. And third, let's not overstate MLS' role -- US players don't even get a majority of playing minutes. Foreign players get more time and other CONCACAF NTs have benefited a lot more than ours. Says a lot about the league's commitment to US player development, doesn't it? Compare that to Brazil's 1st division, where most players are domestic and the # of foreign players who are starters or significant contributors to their NTs is so small I can count them on my fingers.


I don't have any illusions. Nothing's going to change until the US can somehow develop world-class players against the odds, and those players turn their back on MLS and the rest of the corrupt system. If the next Christian Pulisic decides to seek a place on the Croatian NT (or wherever his parents' home country is) instead of the USMNT, that might start to turn heads.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Check out the national team. More and more players who went through MLS academies and signed as teenagers. If they're any good, the clubs can end up getting transfer fees -- Vancouver got $22 million for Alphonso Davies.

The Canadian clubs also get solidarity pay and training compensation, much to the MLS players union's chagrin. Eventually, U.S. clubs will as well, which will be great news for, say, FC Dallas.

(Yes, I know the national team isn't very good. We could always start sending everyone through college again.)

There is no such thing as MLS "clubs." MLS is a single entity. Unlike independent leagues with independent clubs in the rest of the world, MLS is a franchise. Competition between MLS franchisees is like competition between different McDonalds locations, which offer essentially the same product under the same umbrella.