Hope Solo - Youth Soccer is for Rich White Kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just to repeat, national team camps are 100% free, including travel, food, and lodging, plus any gear you require for the camp. This includes domestic and international camps/trips. There are plenty of youth national team regulars who come from low-income families.

Plenty? Doubt it. Maybe one or two.

[Anonymous]

Every other country struggles to produce as many NBA caliber basketball players as the US. Why? they simply don't care that much about basketball as a country. Why do we fail to produce world class soccer players? As a country, we don't care that much. Sure, the USSF may care, but as a whole country, we don't. Netherlands and Italy didn't make the WC, it's a national disgrace. Here it was just a news blip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to repeat, national team camps are 100% free, including travel, food, and lodging, plus any gear you require for the camp. This includes domestic and international camps/trips. There are plenty of youth national team regulars who come from low-income families.

Plenty? Doubt it. Maybe one or two.

There are plenty in the boys' youth national team pool. No clue if that's true for girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:The basic point is correct -- cost is an issue, as is travel (much easier to get the time off to shuttle your kids around when you're in a white-collar job).

The idea that $15,000/year is typical, much less the average for *any* player and not just the top 0.1 percent, is bizarre.

$5k/year for *national team* camps? I may check into it, I can't believe that's true. I've heard plenty of stories of talented kids who can't afford to play elite travel. I've never heard of anyone turning down a youth national team camp because of cost.

Also -- the idea that the typical NFL player paid a lot of many for camps before high school is ludicrous. Some, sure. Plenty of QB camps for the next Peyton Manning. Maybe some kicking camps. But the pathway isn't exactly closed for a big, aggressive defensive lineman who plays everyday rec football (possibly with financial aid) and then high school.

I don't think she said it was typical. I think she meant that's what she would have had to pay to play at the highest level if leagues and clubs were like they are now. Again, that is a reasonable estimate for Development Academy and ECNL, especially those that have to travel to national team camps a few times a year. You pay your own travel even if camps are free.

From the original story: "In making her case, Solo said that the average price for a kid to play soccer in the U.S. is $15,000 per year."

I've yet to see any clarification.

On national team camps: A previous poster said transportation was indeed free. I'm looking into it. In any case, that's 1-2 camps a year for the most part. Flying first class?

I concede on both points. Although travel for ECNL girls in ODP can also add up if they make regionals and/or national camps. Ir can be several times a year not just 1-2.

Whether Hope got the $s right or not, soccer in the US is expensive! And I find the claims that kids can just play rec absolutely mind-blowing. This is the same soccer board that obsesses about low-talent kids fighting to make an A or B team. Now we want the real natural talents with a love of the game to settle for rec? Something's really wrong here and I can't believe people who claim not to notice that.

Again, hope may not have had the dollars wrong (average vs. average elite level teen) but she's not wrong that pay to play hurts US soccer and doesn't select for the best talent. And I know, I know, Christian Pulisic. I find it sad that that's the go-to. Since when is America happy that we have one kid who's among the worlds 100 best? Would we be happy with only 1/100 NFL, MLB or NBA players? We wouldn't even settle for one in a hundred snowboarders, hurdlers, or skeet shooters. America is a big, rich, athletically stocked country and we should do much much better than to just have Christian Politic.

Even if she were right about the Rich Kids playing soccer, are you saying there is no talent among them. Except for motivation, why Rich kids are less talented than the non-Rich ones? I would think there a lot more talents in the pool of so-call rich kids than that in Iceland. The problem is not lack of talents. The problem is the lack of developing talents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if she were right about the Rich Kids playing soccer, are you saying there is no talent among them. Except for motivation, why Rich kids are less talented than the non-Rich ones? I would think there a lot more talents in the pool of so-call rich kids than that in Iceland. The problem is not lack of talents. The problem is the lack of developing talents.

I don't know about soccer but UMC/rich white kids that play football for Langley and Mclean HS are routine crushed by poor AA football kids from Hayfield HS. Same goes with BB as well. It is outright embarrassing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if she were right about the Rich Kids playing soccer, are you saying there is no talent among them. Except for motivation, why Rich kids are less talented than the non-Rich ones? I would think there a lot more talents in the pool of so-call rich kids than that in Iceland. The problem is not lack of talents. The problem is the lack of developing talents.

I don't know about soccer but UMC/rich white kids that play football for Langley and Mclean HS are routine crushed by poor AA football kids from Hayfield HS. Same goes with BB as well. It is outright embarrassing.

Maybe because all the talented white rich kids chose to play soccer instead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because all the talented white rich kids chose to play soccer instead?

both Langley and Mclean boys soccer SUCKED last year. Both had horrible losing records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because all the talented white rich kids chose to play soccer instead?

both Langley and Mclean boys soccer SUCKED last year. Both had horrible losing records.

That's the difference between soccer and other sports. DA doesn't allow their players to play school ball.

[Anonymous]

What is UMC?

[Anonymous]

upper middle class

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because all the talented white rich kids chose to play soccer instead?

both Langley and Mclean boys soccer SUCKED last year. Both had horrible losing records.

That's the difference between soccer and other sports. DA doesn't allow their players to play school ball.

Travel baseball and high school baseball look exactly the same (except maybe the calibre of player). High school soccer isn't coached the same, officiated the same, or played the same. High school soccer has a higher injury rate than travel soccer, and it causes players to pick up bad habits as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Youth Soccer is for Rich White Kids"

Soccer is not a rich white kids sport. It is a sports for poor people just like football, baseball and basketball. I laugh at the fact that people complain they spend 20k/year on their kids for soccer. That's like a drop in the bucket to tennis or golf or piano lessons.

I spent about 40k on tennis, 45k on golf and 40k on piano lessons last year on both my son and daughter.

Holy crap, you are spending more than 2k per WEEK on those activities for your children. I really hope they are headed for Wimbledon, PGA or Carnegie Hall for that kind of money. That is INSANE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just to repeat, national team camps are 100% free, including travel, food, and lodging, plus any gear you require for the camp. This includes domestic and international camps/trips. There are plenty of youth national team regulars who come from low-income families.

Plenty? Doubt it. Maybe one or two.

There are plenty in the boys' youth national team pool. No clue if that's true for girls.

Definitely not true for girls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe because all the talented white rich kids chose to play soccer instead?

both Langley and Mclean boys soccer SUCKED last year. Both had horrible losing records.

That's the difference between soccer and other sports. DA doesn't allow their players to play school ball.

Travel baseball and high school baseball look exactly the same (except maybe the calibre of player). High school soccer isn't coached the same, officiated the same, or played the same. High school soccer has a higher injury rate than travel soccer, and it causes players to pick up bad habits as well.

High school soccer ticks me off and it is painful to watch. I always support my players that are on the school team and try to attend their games but the quality is just awful and players either plateau or regress, and like the other poster said pick up bad habits. Not to mention the fact that they simply are unable to attend practice, which means collectively team chemistry takes a hit on the field, and players seem to be less fit, despite practicing 5 times a week. It’s just a mess, and something we should all take a hard look at towards fixing, as there is already a great infrastructure in place to aid with development and scouting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our rec league heavily subsidizes kids on FARMs. They can play for $50/season or less depending on income.

What? Aren’t MSI and Stoddert close to this for everyone?

Anyway - rich white kid doccer doesn’t get you anywhere anyway. It just churns our cookie cutter kids - whoever keeps playing wins. Poorer kids can just play pickup game together and they will be far better players.