Development and Academy Systems

[Anonymous]

Interesting article in the Ringer on the latest US export, and what it may reflect about the role of MLS academies in supporting better development of homegrown talent. Lots of controversial points here (note the discussion about biobanding and the attendance at a soccer-based school) but worth discussing. https://www.theringer.com/2021/1/7/22208495/brenden-aaronson-philadelphia-union-red-bull-salzburg-mls

[Anonymous]

That was a good read, thanks. One thing that comes to mind for me, is that this kind of home grown development by pro clubs is not nearly as common on the girls side, and yet, the country is hugely successful at the WNT level, and is producing lots of stars. The soccer economy for women is markedly different, and so is the development pathway. There is more than one way here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That was a good read, thanks. One thing that comes to mind for me, is that this kind of home grown development by pro clubs is not nearly as common on the girls side, and yet, the country is hugely successful at the WNT level, and is producing lots of stars. The soccer economy for women is markedly different, and so is the development pathway. There is more than one way here.

Sure - our women are stars relative to other countries because far more of our girls particpate in soccer and our infrastructure for women is far more developed than other countries' infrastructure for women. In nearly all countries girls simply do not play soccer any more than they play American football here.

And our men are not as successful for exactly the same reason. Fewer particpate than other countries and our infrastructure is less developed (for men) than theirs.

In other words men face a completely different level of competition than women and therefore what currently works for women would absolutely not work for men.

[Anonymous]

our women are good because of title IX and because American parents are just as likely to support boys as girls in athletics.

We aren't going to an academy system here because most parents are sane enough to realize that an academy will be lucky to produce on pro a year and that every other kid would have been better off in a real school

[Anonymous]

OP here. Interesting points and all seem valid re: the differences between boy and girl systems in the US. Girls have first-mover advantages here and don't really need homegrown systems to flourish. On the boys side, I don't think the US will ever be a top 8 world team (put aside quarterfinal World Cup finishes - that is always luck of the draw and Turkey and South Korea have been recent semifinalists). And all but may be one or two kids per year in this area would have a real shot at being good pro players in MLS or otherwise. But if the MLS academies get it right on the boys side, and become legitimate magnets and funnels for real talent, and then see attractive returns from transfer fees, I cannot help but think there will be trickle down effects on the boys side, regardless of what leagues boys choose to play in from year to year. The interesting point to me was that top-level teams may have more cushion to develop players that do not necessarily add immediate value at, say, U13 or U14 (irrelevant for DCU since they don't begin play until U15, but perhaps the same principle applies even at that later age). This article made it sound like Philly Union was in a better position to develop this player appropriately because it is an MLS academy, and had the incentive to do so because of the transfer fees. The reason I think that is controversial is that I bet my bottom dollar that the kid could have played two or three years up despite his lack of size and speed. But that does not sound like what they did with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Interesting points and all seem valid re: the differences between boy and girl systems in the US. Girls have first-mover advantages here and don't really need homegrown systems to flourish. On the boys side, I don't think the US will ever be a top 8 world team (put aside quarterfinal World Cup finishes - that is always luck of the draw and Turkey and South Korea have been recent semifinalists). And all but may be one or two kids per year in this area would have a real shot at being good pro players in MLS or otherwise. But if the MLS academies get it right on the boys side, and become legitimate magnets and funnels for real talent, and then see attractive returns from transfer fees, I cannot help but think there will be trickle down effects on the boys side, regardless of what leagues boys choose to play in from year to year. The interesting point to me was that top-level teams may have more cushion to develop players that do not necessarily add immediate value at, say, U13 or U14 (irrelevant for DCU since they don't begin play until U15, but perhaps the same principle applies even at that later age). This article made it sound like Philly Union was in a better position to develop this player appropriately because it is an MLS academy, and had the incentive to do so because of the transfer fees. The reason I think that is controversial is that I bet my bottom dollar that the kid could have played two or three years up despite his lack of size and speed. But that does not sound like what they did with him.

Playing 2 or 3 years up is not a substitute for playing at a well-run academy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Interesting points and all seem valid re: the differences between boy and girl systems in the US. Girls have first-mover advantages here and don't really need homegrown systems to flourish. On the boys side, I don't think the US will ever be a top 8 world team (put aside quarterfinal World Cup finishes - that is always luck of the draw and Turkey and South Korea have been recent semifinalists). And all but may be one or two kids per year in this area would have a real shot at being good pro players in MLS or otherwise. But if the MLS academies get it right on the boys side, and become legitimate magnets and funnels for real talent, and then see attractive returns from transfer fees, I cannot help but think there will be trickle down effects on the boys side, regardless of what leagues boys choose to play in from year to year. The interesting point to me was that top-level teams may have more cushion to develop players that do not necessarily add immediate value at, say, U13 or U14 (irrelevant for DCU since they don't begin play until U15, but perhaps the same principle applies even at that later age). This article made it sound like Philly Union was in a better position to develop this player appropriately because it is an MLS academy, and had the incentive to do so because of the transfer fees. The reason I think that is controversial is that I bet my bottom dollar that the kid could have played two or three years up despite his lack of size and speed. But that does not sound like what they did with him.

Playing 2 or 3 years up is not a substitute for playing at a well-run academy.

Yep, I think that is a point in the article - they were in fact playing him down at one point given his size, and implied that that helped with his development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Interesting points and all seem valid re: the differences between boy and girl systems in the US. Girls have first-mover advantages here and don't really need homegrown systems to flourish. On the boys side, I don't think the US will ever be a top 8 world team (put aside quarterfinal World Cup finishes - that is always luck of the draw and Turkey and South Korea have been recent semifinalists). And all but may be one or two kids per year in this area would have a real shot at being good pro players in MLS or otherwise. But if the MLS academies get it right on the boys side, and become legitimate magnets and funnels for real talent, and then see attractive returns from transfer fees, I cannot help but think there will be trickle down effects on the boys side, regardless of what leagues boys choose to play in from year to year. The interesting point to me was that top-level teams may have more cushion to develop players that do not necessarily add immediate value at, say, U13 or U14 (irrelevant for DCU since they don't begin play until U15, but perhaps the same principle applies even at that later age). This article made it sound like Philly Union was in a better position to develop this player appropriately because it is an MLS academy, and had the incentive to do so because of the transfer fees. The reason I think that is controversial is that I bet my bottom dollar that the kid could have played two or three years up despite his lack of size and speed. But that does not sound like what they did with him.

They got a perfect storm in that he was very good and still willing to sign a contract as an adult. Smarter kids (or kids with smarter parents) would never have had him sign post 18 and just gone to Europe unencumbered by the transfer market. Also MLS contracts have never been tested in the court of arbitration (they essentially gave away Larin rather than risk it)