ECNL moving to school year not calendar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem for mlsnext is obvious.

If 20% or so of the current mlsnext kids — those with birthdays between August to December — decide being one of the top ECNL players is better than being a bench mlsnext player they shift leagues.

And, who replaces them on the mlsnext squad? The January - June birthday kids currently playing ECNL? No. There are reasons why they aren’t playing mlsnext currently.

That’s the mlsnext problem. They can lose 20% of their kids and not have good replacements. Suddenly the ECNL teams look much “better”.

Seriously stop trying to apply your girl logic to boys.

With boys all the top players play on MLS Academy teams. These players are all under contract through MLS and this is where college recruiters go first when looking for talent. Also with the boys there's much less college spots available so showcases don't carry the same weight as they do on the boys side.

If MLSN stays BY and ECNL goes SY, then MLSN kids are a bit misaligned for college recruiters if colleges want to take advantage of RAE. Will be interesting.

MLS Next has biobanding so RAE doesn't matter. Also the top players on MLS Acadamies are usually playing up 1-2 years.

Your girl dad mind doesn't comprehend how MLS Acadamies function because there's no equivalent for a true Acadamy club on the girls side. (In the US)

For boys college teams are FULL of 24 year old freshman that just recently washed out of XYZ foreign Academy. This is who American youth soccer players are competing for roster spots with on college teams. RAE doesn't matter in this type of environment after u14. You can play in a regular MLS Next club and do biobanding but once you hit puberty it's done. Either you're the next top player or you don't matter.

Makes you wonder why MLSN was threatened enough to try to block the other leagues from going to SY. And why are MLSN rosters mostly Q1 and 2 kids again?

Nobody cares.

I'm sorry that you've just discovered that MLS runs US Soccer.

Huh? The block attempt didn't work, almost all leagues other than MLSN (and NAL) going to SY in fall 2026 or possibly sooner.

Huh? When and where exactly have all these leagues announced these Fall 2026 plans officially? That’s right, not 1 has— but nice try.

The denial is amusing.

It really is! It is a fact that not a single league has officially announced SY change plans for Fall 2026 as yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I’m aware, club teams can’t just choose to join MLS or open an MLS Academy. So MLS is a closed system and only has boys teams.

If MLS Next does BY and ECNL does SY, then boys who are not selected to play on MLS teams/academies will no doubt decide between ECNL teams and MLS Next teams based on which situation is best for them.

So why would ECNL be influenced by MLS when: 1) MLS is not under US Club soccer, 2) going to birth year would help differentiate ECNL from MLS Next, and 3) ECNL was formed in 2009 as a girls league (and didn’t have any boys teams for the first 8 or 9 years of its existence).

So yes, I would imagine ECNL would have no issues going in an opposite direction from MLS.

The thing is MLSN and GA don't tell clubs that you can't have GA if you don't have MLSN and vice versa.

MLSN doesn't care what you do on the girls side. They also don't care what other leagues clubs play in on the boys side. GA also doesn't care which leagues GA clubs participate in on the boys side. This is why many MLSN clubs tend to choose GA for their girls.

ECNL does try to force clubs to participate in boys ECNL if they want girls ECNL. ECNL also takes girls ECNL away from clubs if they bring on MLSN. My personal opinion is that this is a form of tieing and it's illegal. But nobody has brought a case yet to clarify.

Interesting ... I guess I now realize what clubs do in response ... A few years back a top ECNL club for girls in our area basically split off its boys side. The marketing made it sound like it was all Girl power, but thinking back it probably was because the boys -- also historically at top levels -- are MLSN.

Yep + now you know why many clubs hate ECNL. It's hard to explain to the ECNL hats because all they care about is their kid and typically they're girl dads.

But, ECNL does punish clubs for going MLSN and they also won't allow clubs with MLSN to have girls ECNL.

Think about this next time you look down your nose at a GA club that has MLSN. They're just trying to provide the best environment for their players both boys and girls.

ECNL has leagues for both girls and boys. MLS/NWSL only has boys. USSF killed DA. Who is the bad again?

And DA was replaced by MLS Next and Girls Academy. What's your point?

Wasn't replaced, they a long with ECNL filled voids.

MLS replaced DA with MLS Next that is a fact. MLS wanted more control over the Academy pipelines.

GA was put together to fill a void.

They were both put together to fill a void.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I’m aware, club teams can’t just choose to join MLS or open an MLS Academy. So MLS is a closed system and only has boys teams.

If MLS Next does BY and ECNL does SY, then boys who are not selected to play on MLS teams/academies will no doubt decide between ECNL teams and MLS Next teams based on which situation is best for them.

So why would ECNL be influenced by MLS when: 1) MLS is not under US Club soccer, 2) going to birth year would help differentiate ECNL from MLS Next, and 3) ECNL was formed in 2009 as a girls league (and didn’t have any boys teams for the first 8 or 9 years of its existence).

So yes, I would imagine ECNL would have no issues going in an opposite direction from MLS.

The thing is MLSN and GA don't tell clubs that you can't have GA if you don't have MLSN and vice versa.

MLSN doesn't care what you do on the girls side. They also don't care what other leagues clubs play in on the boys side. GA also doesn't care which leagues GA clubs participate in on the boys side. This is why many MLSN clubs tend to choose GA for their girls.

ECNL does try to force clubs to participate in boys ECNL if they want girls ECNL. ECNL also takes girls ECNL away from clubs if they bring on MLSN. My personal opinion is that this is a form of tieing and it's illegal. But nobody has brought a case yet to clarify.

Interesting ... I guess I now realize what clubs do in response ... A few years back a top ECNL club for girls in our area basically split off its boys side. The marketing made it sound like it was all Girl power, but thinking back it probably was because the boys -- also historically at top levels -- are MLSN.

Yep + now you know why many clubs hate ECNL. It's hard to explain to the ECNL hats because all they care about is their kid and typically they're girl dads.

But, ECNL does punish clubs for going MLSN and they also won't allow clubs with MLSN to have girls ECNL.

Think about this next time you look down your nose at a GA club that has MLSN. They're just trying to provide the best environment for their players both boys and girls.

ECNL has leagues for both girls and boys. MLS/NWSL only has boys. USSF killed DA. Who is the bad again?

And DA was replaced by MLS Next and Girls Academy. What's your point?

Wasn't replaced, they a long with ECNL filled voids.

MLS replaced DA with MLS Next that is a fact. MLS wanted more control over the Academy pipelines.

GA was put together to fill a void.

They were both put together to fill a void.

Why isn't MLSN in every state? Seems like they failed to fill that void. ECNL on the other hand....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I’m aware, club teams can’t just choose to join MLS or open an MLS Academy. So MLS is a closed system and only has boys teams.

If MLS Next does BY and ECNL does SY, then boys who are not selected to play on MLS teams/academies will no doubt decide between ECNL teams and MLS Next teams based on which situation is best for them.

So why would ECNL be influenced by MLS when: 1) MLS is not under US Club soccer, 2) going to birth year would help differentiate ECNL from MLS Next, and 3) ECNL was formed in 2009 as a girls league (and didn’t have any boys teams for the first 8 or 9 years of its existence).

So yes, I would imagine ECNL would have no issues going in an opposite direction from MLS.

The thing is MLSN and GA don't tell clubs that you can't have GA if you don't have MLSN and vice versa.

MLSN doesn't care what you do on the girls side. They also don't care what other leagues clubs play in on the boys side. GA also doesn't care which leagues GA clubs participate in on the boys side. This is why many MLSN clubs tend to choose GA for their girls.

ECNL does try to force clubs to participate in boys ECNL if they want girls ECNL. ECNL also takes girls ECNL away from clubs if they bring on MLSN. My personal opinion is that this is a form of tieing and it's illegal. But nobody has brought a case yet to clarify.

Interesting ... I guess I now realize what clubs do in response ... A few years back a top ECNL club for girls in our area basically split off its boys side. The marketing made it sound like it was all Girl power, but thinking back it probably was because the boys -- also historically at top levels -- are MLSN.

Yep + now you know why many clubs hate ECNL. It's hard to explain to the ECNL hats because all they care about is their kid and typically they're girl dads.

But, ECNL does punish clubs for going MLSN and they also won't allow clubs with MLSN to have girls ECNL.

Think about this next time you look down your nose at a GA club that has MLSN. They're just trying to provide the best environment for their players both boys and girls.

ECNL has leagues for both girls and boys. MLS/NWSL only has boys. USSF killed DA. Who is the bad again?

And DA was replaced by MLS Next and Girls Academy. What's your point?

Wasn't replaced, they a long with ECNL filled voids.

MLS replaced DA with MLS Next that is a fact. MLS wanted more control over the Academy pipelines.

GA was put together to fill a void.

Not replacements, they both were created by differing entities to filled voids after USSF quit on kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I’m aware, club teams can’t just choose to join MLS or open an MLS Academy. So MLS is a closed system and only has boys teams.

If MLS Next does BY and ECNL does SY, then boys who are not selected to play on MLS teams/academies will no doubt decide between ECNL teams and MLS Next teams based on which situation is best for them.

So why would ECNL be influenced by MLS when: 1) MLS is not under US Club soccer, 2) going to birth year would help differentiate ECNL from MLS Next, and 3) ECNL was formed in 2009 as a girls league (and didn’t have any boys teams for the first 8 or 9 years of its existence).

So yes, I would imagine ECNL would have no issues going in an opposite direction from MLS.

The thing is MLSN and GA don't tell clubs that you can't have GA if you don't have MLSN and vice versa.

MLSN doesn't care what you do on the girls side. They also don't care what other leagues clubs play in on the boys side. GA also doesn't care which leagues GA clubs participate in on the boys side. This is why many MLSN clubs tend to choose GA for their girls.

ECNL does try to force clubs to participate in boys ECNL if they want girls ECNL. ECNL also takes girls ECNL away from clubs if they bring on MLSN. My personal opinion is that this is a form of tieing and it's illegal. But nobody has brought a case yet to clarify.

Interesting ... I guess I now realize what clubs do in response ... A few years back a top ECNL club for girls in our area basically split off its boys side. The marketing made it sound like it was all Girl power, but thinking back it probably was because the boys -- also historically at top levels -- are MLSN.

Yep + now you know why many clubs hate ECNL. It's hard to explain to the ECNL hats because all they care about is their kid and typically they're girl dads.

But, ECNL does punish clubs for going MLSN and they also won't allow clubs with MLSN to have girls ECNL.

Think about this next time you look down your nose at a GA club that has MLSN. They're just trying to provide the best environment for their players both boys and girls.

ECNL has leagues for both girls and boys. MLS/NWSL only has boys. USSF killed DA. Who is the bad again?

And DA was replaced by MLS Next and Girls Academy. What's your point?

Wasn't replaced, they a long with ECNL filled voids.

MLS replaced DA with MLS Next that is a fact. MLS wanted more control over the Academy pipelines.

GA was put together to fill a void.

They were both put together to fill a void.

Why isn't MLSN in every state? Seems like they failed to fill that void. ECNL on the other hand....

MLSN, GA, and ECNL are all relatively new and new to the market. ECNL differentiating by going SY will be an interesting wrinkle that will change things in unforeseen ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are going to see a great divide and change in the landscape as a whole. ECNL is already talking to clubs with either MLSN boys saying join us and we will let your girls in. Trying to pull some mid tier MLSN teams and let the girls join ECNL from RL or GA.

I’d be willing to bet we will see MLSN and ECNL start adding pre whatever for U11/12 and start their own feeder systems.

In San Diego, I can see Albion and City would like to join ECNL. This will be a huge blow to GA in the southwestern conference.

Both of these clubs have MLS Next on the boys side and GA on the girls side.

Nobody is going to give up MLSN for ECNL on the boys side.

ECNL will only offer these clubs girls ECNL if they drop MLSN and do ECNL for both boys and girls.

See how there's an impasse? SY might force all the MLSN + GA leagues to create their own BY feeder rec leagues.

You are just making stuff up, a lot of the bigger clubs have MLSN and ECNL teams, there isn't a conflict there. MLS Academy teams are the top destination on the boys side where this debate does not matter and they are choosing their pool from both leagues. I know you want MLSN to be the night in shining armor in your made up scenario but they really don't have a dog in this fight.

What a stupid idiot. Name some big clubs with both MLSN and girl ECNL. You can not even count with one hand. I am very sure Albion or City wants to join ECNL, but get denied.

Ummm, Bay Area Surf in Northern Cali has a top MLS Next platform. Bay Area Surf often competes well vs. the MLS Academy Earthquake teams and some boys invited to the Earthquakes actually decline. They also have a TOP ECNL Girls side. So, this combo certainly does exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem for mlsnext is obvious.

If 20% or so of the current mlsnext kids — those with birthdays between August to December — decide being one of the top ECNL players is better than being a bench mlsnext player they shift leagues.

And, who replaces them on the mlsnext squad? The January - June birthday kids currently playing ECNL? No. There are reasons why they aren’t playing mlsnext currently.

That’s the mlsnext problem. They can lose 20% of their kids and not have good replacements. Suddenly the ECNL teams look much “better”.

Seriously stop trying to apply your girl logic to boys.

With boys all the top players play on MLS Academy teams. These players are all under contract through MLS and this is where college recruiters go first when looking for talent. Also with the boys there's much less college spots available so showcases don't carry the same weight as they do on the boys side.

If MLSN stays BY and ECNL goes SY, then MLSN kids are a bit misaligned for college recruiters if colleges want to take advantage of RAE. Will be interesting.

MLS Next has biobanding so RAE doesn't matter. Also the top players on MLS Acadamies are usually playing up 1-2 years.

Your girl dad mind doesn't comprehend how MLS Acadamies function because there's no equivalent for a true Acadamy club on the girls side. (In the US)

For boys college teams are FULL of 24 year old freshman that just recently washed out of XYZ foreign Academy. This is who American youth soccer players are competing for roster spots with on college teams. RAE doesn't matter in this type of environment after u14. You can play in a regular MLS Next club and do biobanding but once you hit puberty it's done. Either you're the next top player or you don't matter.

Makes you wonder why MLSN was threatened enough to try to block the other leagues from going to SY. And why are MLSN rosters mostly Q1 and 2 kids again?

Nobody cares.

I'm sorry that you've just discovered that MLS runs US Soccer.

Huh? The block attempt didn't work, almost all leagues other than MLSN (and NAL) going to SY in fall 2026 or possibly sooner.

Huh? When and where exactly have all these leagues announced these Fall 2026 plans officially? That’s right, not 1 has— but nice try.

The denial is amusing.

It really is! It is a fact that not a single league has officially announced SY change plans for Fall 2026 as yet.

Everyone is probably just waiting on this magical guidance US Soccer will be putting out in March after their meeting. Until then, I wouldnt expect anything "official" for 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I’m aware, club teams can’t just choose to join MLS or open an MLS Academy. So MLS is a closed system and only has boys teams.

If MLS Next does BY and ECNL does SY, then boys who are not selected to play on MLS teams/academies will no doubt decide between ECNL teams and MLS Next teams based on which situation is best for them.

So why would ECNL be influenced by MLS when: 1) MLS is not under US Club soccer, 2) going to birth year would help differentiate ECNL from MLS Next, and 3) ECNL was formed in 2009 as a girls league (and didn’t have any boys teams for the first 8 or 9 years of its existence).

So yes, I would imagine ECNL would have no issues going in an opposite direction from MLS.

The thing is MLSN and GA don't tell clubs that you can't have GA if you don't have MLSN and vice versa.

MLSN doesn't care what you do on the girls side. They also don't care what other leagues clubs play in on the boys side. GA also doesn't care which leagues GA clubs participate in on the boys side. This is why many MLSN clubs tend to choose GA for their girls.

ECNL does try to force clubs to participate in boys ECNL if they want girls ECNL. ECNL also takes girls ECNL away from clubs if they bring on MLSN. My personal opinion is that this is a form of tieing and it's illegal. But nobody has brought a case yet to clarify.

Interesting ... I guess I now realize what clubs do in response ... A few years back a top ECNL club for girls in our area basically split off its boys side. The marketing made it sound like it was all Girl power, but thinking back it probably was because the boys -- also historically at top levels -- are MLSN.

Yep + now you know why many clubs hate ECNL. It's hard to explain to the ECNL hats because all they care about is their kid and typically they're girl dads.

But, ECNL does punish clubs for going MLSN and they also won't allow clubs with MLSN to have girls ECNL.

Think about this next time you look down your nose at a GA club that has MLSN. They're just trying to provide the best environment for their players both boys and girls.

You don’t know what you’re talking about? There are plenty of clubs that have MLSN and ECNL for girls. Does ECNL want full membership? Obviously that makes them more money but they are not kicking out girls teams because of the boys.

A club in my area just got ECNL for girls side within the last 2 years boys play MLSN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I’m aware, club teams can’t just choose to join MLS or open an MLS Academy. So MLS is a closed system and only has boys teams.

If MLS Next does BY and ECNL does SY, then boys who are not selected to play on MLS teams/academies will no doubt decide between ECNL teams and MLS Next teams based on which situation is best for them.

So why would ECNL be influenced by MLS when: 1) MLS is not under US Club soccer, 2) going to birth year would help differentiate ECNL from MLS Next, and 3) ECNL was formed in 2009 as a girls league (and didn’t have any boys teams for the first 8 or 9 years of its existence).

So yes, I would imagine ECNL would have no issues going in an opposite direction from MLS.

The thing is MLSN and GA don't tell clubs that you can't have GA if you don't have MLSN and vice versa.

MLSN doesn't care what you do on the girls side. They also don't care what other leagues clubs play in on the boys side. GA also doesn't care which leagues GA clubs participate in on the boys side. This is why many MLSN clubs tend to choose GA for their girls.

ECNL does try to force clubs to participate in boys ECNL if they want girls ECNL. ECNL also takes girls ECNL away from clubs if they bring on MLSN. My personal opinion is that this is a form of tieing and it's illegal. But nobody has brought a case yet to clarify.

Interesting ... I guess I now realize what clubs do in response ... A few years back a top ECNL club for girls in our area basically split off its boys side. The marketing made it sound like it was all Girl power, but thinking back it probably was because the boys -- also historically at top levels -- are MLSN.

Yep + now you know why many clubs hate ECNL. It's hard to explain to the ECNL hats because all they care about is their kid and typically they're girl dads.

But, ECNL does punish clubs for going MLSN and they also won't allow clubs with MLSN to have girls ECNL.

Think about this next time you look down your nose at a GA club that has MLSN. They're just trying to provide the best environment for their players both boys and girls.

You don’t know what you’re talking about? There are plenty of clubs that have MLSN and ECNL for girls. Does ECNL want full membership? Obviously that makes them more money but they are not kicking out girls teams because of the boys.

A club in my area just got ECNL for girls side within the last 2 years boys play MLSN.

Most clubs do not have MLSN boys and ECNL girls. I would assume ECNL highly suggests going with full membership. It’s a business, why wouldn’t they? If MLSN had a girls side I’m sure they’d do the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are going to see a great divide and change in the landscape as a whole. ECNL is already talking to clubs with either MLSN boys saying join us and we will let your girls in. Trying to pull some mid tier MLSN teams and let the girls join ECNL from RL or GA.

I’d be willing to bet we will see MLSN and ECNL start adding pre whatever for U11/12 and start their own feeder systems.

In San Diego, I can see Albion and City would like to join ECNL. This will be a huge blow to GA in the southwestern conference.

Both of these clubs have MLS Next on the boys side and GA on the girls side.

Nobody is going to give up MLSN for ECNL on the boys side.

ECNL will only offer these clubs girls ECNL if they drop MLSN and do ECNL for both boys and girls.

See how there's an impasse? SY might force all the MLSN + GA leagues to create their own BY feeder rec leagues.

You are just making stuff up, a lot of the bigger clubs have MLSN and ECNL teams, there isn't a conflict there. MLS Academy teams are the top destination on the boys side where this debate does not matter and they are choosing their pool from both leagues. I know you want MLSN to be the night in shining armor in your made up scenario but they really don't have a dog in this fight.

What a stupid idiot. Name some big clubs with both MLSN and girl ECNL. You can not even count with one hand. I am very sure Albion or City wants to join ECNL, but get denied.

Ummm, Bay Area Surf in Northern Cali has a top MLS Next platform. Bay Area Surf often competes well vs. the MLS Academy Earthquake teams and some boys invited to the Earthquakes actually decline. They also have a TOP ECNL Girls side. So, this combo certainly does exist.

sorry I don't know the entire landscape of youth soccer across the nation, but in the North Atlantic alone, FC Delco & Bethesda have MLSN & ECNL so that's 2 more

[Anonymous]

MLS Next is going to expand through Midwest (IA, WI, MN, MO, NE, SD, ND), in 5 years the top clubs in those areas will be leaving ECNL boys, NPL etc and joining MLS Next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem for mlsnext is obvious.

If 20% or so of the current mlsnext kids — those with birthdays between August to December — decide being one of the top ECNL players is better than being a bench mlsnext player they shift leagues.

And, who replaces them on the mlsnext squad? The January - June birthday kids currently playing ECNL? No. There are reasons why they aren’t playing mlsnext currently.

That’s the mlsnext problem. They can lose 20% of their kids and not have good replacements. Suddenly the ECNL teams look much “better”.

Seriously stop trying to apply your girl logic to boys.

With boys all the top players play on MLS Academy teams. These players are all under contract through MLS and this is where college recruiters go first when looking for talent. Also with the boys there's much less college spots available so showcases don't carry the same weight as they do on the boys side.

If MLSN stays BY and ECNL goes SY, then MLSN kids are a bit misaligned for college recruiters if colleges want to take advantage of RAE. Will be interesting.

Is this someone who doesn't understand American youth sports?

Colleges are prioritizing MLSN over ECNL for boys no matter what.

College coaches don’t give a hoot what league or club a kid plays for. A kid could play for a small town rec league, and if the coach is impressed - they make an offer.


If the best kids for a particular graduate year are playing ECNL boys - they will get recruited.

Is this someone who doesn't understand American youth sports?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem for mlsnext is obvious.

If 20% or so of the current mlsnext kids — those with birthdays between August to December — decide being one of the top ECNL players is better than being a bench mlsnext player they shift leagues.

And, who replaces them on the mlsnext squad? The January - June birthday kids currently playing ECNL? No. There are reasons why they aren’t playing mlsnext currently.

That’s the mlsnext problem. They can lose 20% of their kids and not have good replacements. Suddenly the ECNL teams look much “better”.

Seriously stop trying to apply your girl logic to boys.

With boys all the top players play on MLS Academy teams. These players are all under contract through MLS and this is where college recruiters go first when looking for talent. Also with the boys there's much less college spots available so showcases don't carry the same weight as they do on the boys side.

If MLSN stays BY and ECNL goes SY, then MLSN kids are a bit misaligned for college recruiters if colleges want to take advantage of RAE. Will be interesting.

Is this someone who doesn't understand American youth sports?

Colleges are prioritizing MLSN over ECNL for boys no matter what.

College coaches don’t give a hoot what league or club a kid plays for. A kid could play for a small town rec league, and if the coach is impressed - they make an offer.


If the best kids for a particular graduate year are playing ECNL boys - they will get recruited.

Is this someone who doesn't understand American youth sports?

That may be too strong but no idea of girls/womens soccer would be accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as I’m aware, club teams can’t just choose to join MLS or open an MLS Academy. So MLS is a closed system and only has boys teams.

If MLS Next does BY and ECNL does SY, then boys who are not selected to play on MLS teams/academies will no doubt decide between ECNL teams and MLS Next teams based on which situation is best for them.

So why would ECNL be influenced by MLS when: 1) MLS is not under US Club soccer, 2) going to birth year would help differentiate ECNL from MLS Next, and 3) ECNL was formed in 2009 as a girls league (and didn’t have any boys teams for the first 8 or 9 years of its existence).

So yes, I would imagine ECNL would have no issues going in an opposite direction from MLS.

The thing is MLSN and GA don't tell clubs that you can't have GA if you don't have MLSN and vice versa.

MLSN doesn't care what you do on the girls side. They also don't care what other leagues clubs play in on the boys side. GA also doesn't care which leagues GA clubs participate in on the boys side. This is why many MLSN clubs tend to choose GA for their girls.

ECNL does try to force clubs to participate in boys ECNL if they want girls ECNL. ECNL also takes girls ECNL away from clubs if they bring on MLSN. My personal opinion is that this is a form of tieing and it's illegal. But nobody has brought a case yet to clarify.

Interesting ... I guess I now realize what clubs do in response ... A few years back a top ECNL club for girls in our area basically split off its boys side. The marketing made it sound like it was all Girl power, but thinking back it probably was because the boys -- also historically at top levels -- are MLSN.

Yep + now you know why many clubs hate ECNL. It's hard to explain to the ECNL hats because all they care about is their kid and typically they're girl dads.

But, ECNL does punish clubs for going MLSN and they also won't allow clubs with MLSN to have girls ECNL.

Think about this next time you look down your nose at a GA club that has MLSN. They're just trying to provide the best environment for their players both boys and girls.

You don’t know what you’re talking about? There are plenty of clubs that have MLSN and ECNL for girls. Does ECNL want full membership? Obviously that makes them more money but they are not kicking out girls teams because of the boys.

A club in my area just got ECNL for girls side within the last 2 years boys play MLSN.

Obviously, you do not have any business sense. I bet it is a top GA team, so ECNL can allow their boys stay in MLSN. In Socal, ECNL kicks out Striker Girl ECNL, because their boys want to stay in MLS. When ECNL has dominated in certain markets, it will enforce its full membership. In the long run, with the exception of MLS Academy, MLSN is just another pay to play clubs

[Anonymous]

https://player.captivate.fm/episode/a3e505ed-95b0-4b0a-816b-06df59d56ef0/