ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

ECNL began in 2009 and didn’t have any boys teams until 2017.

MLS Next “launched” in 2020. And MLS is men/boys only.

ECNL told US Soccer it wanted BY. MLS told US Soccer it wanted SY. US Soccer said they are free to do whichever they want.

So I don’t follow as to why MLS or MLS Next would influence ECNL’s decision making or prevent ECNL from doing what it wants.

[Anonymous]

*Correction - ECNL wants SY and MLS wants BY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL began in 2009 and didn’t have any boys teams until 2017.

MLS Next “launched” in 2020. And MLS is men/boys only.

ECNL told US Soccer it wanted BY. MLS told US Soccer it wanted SY. US Soccer said they are free to do whichever they want.

So I don’t follow as to why MLS or MLS Next would influence ECNL’s decision making or prevent ECNL from doing what it wants.

I think many parents are starting to realize that youth soccer is more complex when you talk about boys and girls and leagues and clubs and bla bla bla.

To answer your question nothing is specifically tied to MLSN or ECNL decisions. However implicitly certain decisions can mean different things.

[Anonymous]

Going to be very interesting because some ECNl girls clubs are only staying relevant because of the badge and not their ability to develop. If they lost the patch idk if they would survive as a GA club especially in areas with 2 or 3 local ECNL clubs and other better development clubs that do not have ECNL so lose players.

Also if word gets out at your club that you turned down the opportunity to go from GA to ECNL you risk losing players also.

[Anonymous]

Are clubs willing to risk a death sentence for their girls if that means the boys goto a slightly lesser league.

Losing ECNL for many clubs will be just that for a number of years as many girls would not stay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ECNL began in 2009 and didn’t have any boys teams until 2017.

MLS Next “launched” in 2020. And MLS is men/boys only.

ECNL told US Soccer it wanted BY. MLS told US Soccer it wanted SY. US Soccer said they are free to do whichever they want.

So I don’t follow as to why MLS or MLS Next would influence ECNL’s decision making or prevent ECNL from doing what it wants.

I don't get it either, where I am from MLSN and ECNL co-exist without much crossover. MLSN will take the top players from ECNL but I don't think ECNL considers that a big deal as they are the top league under MLSN and have the bulk of registrants. FC Dallas has MLSN teams on top of 2-3 ECNL teams and ECNL-RL teams, it isn't an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are clubs willing to risk a death sentence for their girls if that means the boys goto a slightly lesser league.

Losing ECNL for many clubs will be just that for a number of years as many girls would not stay.

ECNL should make "the slightly lesser league" their marketing slogan. Hahaha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are clubs willing to risk a death sentence for their girls if that means the boys goto a slightly lesser league.

Losing ECNL for many clubs will be just that for a number of years as many girls would not stay.

ECNL should make "the slightly lesser league" their marketing slogan. Hahaha.

I think it already is?

[Anonymous]

The point is if ECNL goes SY and MLS does not then boys will go to ECNL to take advantage of the difference and thus close the gap and therefore strengthen ECNL altogether

[Anonymous]

From what I understand clubs also have complained to league reps about management of multiple age systems. So if the majority of youth soccer leagues are playing some type of school system cut off will clubs want to deal with MLSN for boys if they can join ECNL boys and everyone is in sync. Which also would potentially give their girls access to ECNL which means more money for the club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand clubs also have complained to league reps about management of multiple age systems. So if the majority of youth soccer leagues are playing some type of school system cut off will clubs want to deal with MLSN for boys if they can join ECNL boys and everyone is in sync. Which also would potentially give their girls access to ECNL which means more money for the club.

Speaking that I saw a post by SD Surf that claimed to be the #1 ECNL boys side AND the #1 non-MLSN boys club. Interesting distinction imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand clubs also have complained to league reps about management of multiple age systems. So if the majority of youth soccer leagues are playing some type of school system cut off will clubs want to deal with MLSN for boys if they can join ECNL boys and everyone is in sync. Which also would potentially give their girls access to ECNL which means more money for the club.

Speaking that I saw a post by SD Surf that claimed to be the #1 ECNL boys side AND the #1 non-MLSN boys club. Interesting distinction imo.

To add: it was in a post about one of their boys winning the MLS cup with the Galaxy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand clubs also have complained to league reps about management of multiple age systems. So if the majority of youth soccer leagues are playing some type of school system cut off will clubs want to deal with MLSN for boys if they can join ECNL boys and everyone is in sync. Which also would potentially give their girls access to ECNL which means more money for the club.

Speaking that I saw a post by SD Surf that claimed to be the #1 ECNL boys side AND the #1 non-MLSN boys club. Interesting distinction imo.

LOL, MLSN Pay to Play clubs always try to pretend they are in the same group of MLS Academy teams, and seems one step above ECNL, which they are absolutely not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand clubs also have complained to league reps about management of multiple age systems. So if the majority of youth soccer leagues are playing some type of school system cut off will clubs want to deal with MLSN for boys if they can join ECNL boys and everyone is in sync. Which also would potentially give their girls access to ECNL which means more money for the club.

Speaking that I saw a post by SD Surf that claimed to be the #1 ECNL boys side AND the #1 non-MLSN boys club. Interesting distinction imo.

LOL, MLSN Pay to Play clubs always try to pretend they are in the same group of MLS Academy teams, and seems one step above ECNL, which they are absolutely not.

I don't think people realize that their is a difference between MLSN and the MLS academy teams. SD Surf was throwing a little shade in that post, how could an ECNL kid play for the Galaxy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I understand clubs also have complained to league reps about management of multiple age systems. So if the majority of youth soccer leagues are playing some type of school system cut off will clubs want to deal with MLSN for boys if they can join ECNL boys and everyone is in sync. Which also would potentially give their girls access to ECNL which means more money for the club.

Speaking that I saw a post by SD Surf that claimed to be the #1 ECNL boys side AND the #1 non-MLSN boys club. Interesting distinction imo.

LOL, MLSN Pay to Play clubs always try to pretend they are in the same group of MLS Academy teams, and seems one step above ECNL, which they are absolutely not.

The players pay to play MLSN players get looked at by MLS Academy coaches much more often than ECNL players. This is the hook.