Anonymous wrote:

Finally, I have some personal observations about video games. To be sure, some of the attrition from organized sports is about lazy parents (I'm one of them) who don't do enough to limit video game time and stupid kids who get sucked in. But at the same time, I see why my kid has gotten sucked in. Because video games are fun. Because he can find similarly interested gamers and play with them, thereby having control over his playing environment. Because he sees how his practice makes him better (which is not always the case in club sports). When he fails, he just starts another game, and is not berated by any adult or threatened with a demotion or time on the bench. Video games, to him, are safe and the environment more within his control. Club soccer is often unfair, random, influenced by politics. It involves more driving time than playing time. All of these factors make organized sports less fun and video games more appealing.

Anonymous wrote:PP - I agree and have seen the impact these issues on my kids.

To me, the model of "you are only on the team for a year and we re-evaluate every Spring" is stupid and makes kids and coaches disengage. There is no incentive to develop kids and no club commitment to their well being, at least for the vast majority of players who are not the top 5% of the talent pool on a real pathway to the top. For those tip-top kids, fine. But seriously, don't tell me that's how it works with elite European Academies or on professional teams, because that's not where most kids are or where they will end up.

Does it really matter of your team if kids who are not likely to play beyond high school is in the 2nd or 3rd division of EDP? Is that important enough to cut kids who work hard but aren't quite there yet? And the year to year commitment works both ways for bubble and non-bubble players - you may get cut from the team with your friends and/or your friends get cut from your team while you remain. It is especially bad for girls. With so many clubs out there, this idea that kids should be shifted around each year is detrimental to their development. I can't quite figure out if it is a matter of club survival, coaching ego, the need to please insane parents who are demanding wins, or just the fact that everyone else does it so it is too hard to be different, but I know it is not good.

Not to sound too much like a soft soccer mom, but if more more clubs provided a more positive experience for players and had better communication with parents, there would be less moving around, which would promote stability in teams. Let's face it, the reason top teams are constantly taking in outside kids is because good players leave strong teams each year. Why is that? Rather than accepting this as a given, why don't we explore this and try to change it?

Here is a crazy idea. How about instead of posting the social media picture of the team winning a tournament (even if it is the lowest bracket), maybe clubs should brag about how long their players of been with the club or on a particular team, or show multiple B or C team players who worked their way to a top team, or quote parents who appreciate the regular, meaningful feedback their kids receive, regardless of what team they are on. Instead of bragging that a team is going to be in whatever league is the most elite this year, show that your teams (at all levels) are placed in appropriate leagues with appropriate competition. I would be more interested in learning more about player retention than wins and losses.

Oh, and have fewer teams. I know it is so tempting to take thousand of dollars from idiotic parents just so they can brag about their kid's "travel team" in their social circles while their hapless kid goes through the motions with no real interest in getting better, but be better than that. If we had fewer travel teams, then maybe rec leagues would become a realistic option, both at younger ages and for those older kids feeling burnt out from years of tryouts, and driving up and down the East coast, and the pressure to win. For kids who love that competitive environment- fine, offer that. But we do NOT need to have 8 roughly equal teams in a 30 mile radius traveling all over beginning at 8 years old when they could just play each other. I'm not sure we need it at 15. Instead of having low level C teams and giving them nothing at high cost, maybe offer pick ups or other ways that late bloomers can get playing time and improve their game.

There has to be a better way.

Finally, I have some personal observations about video games. To be sure, some of the attrition from organized sports is about lazy parents (I'm one of them) who don't do enough to limit video game time and stupid kids who get sucked in. But at the same time, I see why my kid has gotten sucked in. Because video games are fun. Because he can find similarly interested gamers and play with them, thereby having control over his playing environment. Because he sees how his practice makes him better (which is not always the case in club sports). When he fails, he just starts another game, and is not berated by any adult or threatened with a demotion or time on the bench. Video games, to him, are safe and the environment more within his control. Club soccer is often unfair, random, influenced by politics. It involves more driving time than playing time. All of these factors make organized sports less fun and video games more appealing.

To me, the model of "you are only on the team for a year and we re-evaluate every Spring" is stupid and makes kids and coaches disengage. There is no incentive to develop kids and no club commitment to their well being, at least for the vast majority of players who are not the top 5% of the talent pool on a real pathway to the top. For those tip-top kids, fine. But seriously, don't tell me that's how it works with elite European Academies or on professional teams, because that's not where most kids are or where they will end up.

Does it really matter of your team if kids who are not likely to play beyond high school is in the 2nd or 3rd division of EDP? Is that important enough to cut kids who work hard but aren't quite there yet? And the year to year commitment works both ways for bubble and non-bubble players - you may get cut from the team with your friends and/or your friends get cut from your team while you remain. It is especially bad for girls. With so many clubs out there, this idea that kids should be shifted around each year is detrimental to their development. I can't quite figure out if it is a matter of club survival, coaching ego, the need to please insane parents who are demanding wins, or just the fact that everyone else does it so it is too hard to be different, but I know it is not good.

Not to sound too much like a soft soccer mom, but if more more clubs provided a more positive experience for players and had better communication with parents, there would be less moving around, which would promote stability in teams. Let's face it, the reason top teams are constantly taking in outside kids is because good players leave strong teams each year. Why is that? Rather than accepting this as a given, why don't we explore this and try to change it?

Here is a crazy idea. How about instead of posting the social media picture of the team winning a tournament (even if it is the lowest bracket), maybe clubs should brag about how long their players of been with the club or on a particular team, or show multiple B or C team players who worked their way to a top team, or quote parents who appreciate the regular, meaningful feedback their kids receive, regardless of what team they are on. Instead of bragging that a team is going to be in whatever league is the most elite this year, show that your teams (at all levels) are placed in appropriate leagues with appropriate competition. I would be more interested in learning more about player retention than wins and losses.

Oh, and have fewer teams. I know it is so tempting to take thousand of dollars from idiotic parents just so they can brag about their kid's "travel team" in their social circles while their hapless kid goes through the motions with no real interest in getting better, but be better than that. If we had fewer travel teams, then maybe rec leagues would become a realistic option, both at younger ages and for those older kids feeling burnt out from years of tryouts, and driving up and down the East coast, and the pressure to win. For kids who love that competitive environment- fine, offer that. But we do NOT need to have 8 roughly equal teams in a 30 mile radius traveling all over beginning at 8 years old when they could just play each other. I'm not sure we need it at 15. Instead of having low level C teams and giving them nothing at high cost, maybe offer pick ups or other ways that late bloomers can get playing time and improve their game.

Finally, I have some personal observations about video games. To be sure, some of the attrition from organized sports is about lazy parents (I'm one of them) who don't do enough to limit video game time and stupid kids who get sucked in. But at the same time, I see why my kid has gotten sucked in. Because video games are fun. Because he can find similarly interested gamers and play with them, thereby having control over his playing environment. Because he sees how his practice makes him better (which is not always the case in club sports). When he fails, he just starts another game, and is not berated by any adult or threatened with a demotion or time on the bench. Video games, to him, are safe and the environment more within his control. Club soccer is often unfair, random, influenced by politics. It involves more driving time than playing time. All of these factors make organized sports less fun and video games more appealing.

Anonymous wrote:OP, thanks for a great post.

If you could go back and do it all again, what, if anything, would you change?