Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get this because it was always for rich, white kids. At least when I grew up in the 60s and 70s, only schools in rich, white towns had a boys' soccer team. And FWIW they sure didn't have girls' soccer teams.

Our city (midwest) soccer was for Catholic kids, so mostly working class/blue collar/middle class.

It is a great sport for poor kids. All you need is a ball, shin guards and a grass field.

Are you from St Louis? Big youth soccer scene there, very inclusive.

How did you guess?

CYO soccer is huge there (and cheap).

CYO soccer is also big in Los Angeles. The suburban kids might spend a fortune, btu a lot of the best soccer teams are inner city Catholic Schools that serve mostly lower-income Latino kids.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/how-a-tiny-downtown-school-with-a-blacktop-field-became/article_d7df1370-eb3f-11e3-91b0-0019bb2963f4.html

I think another issue in addition to money barrier in development programs/teams is the pay once you get to pro level.

If you have a very athletic kid which would you spend your resources on? Developing a pro football player who could earn a couple of million/year or a pro soccer player who would be lucky to bring in a couple hundred thousand/year? See Odell Beckham. Nevermind the women's teams don't pay more than $40k/year. For that amount you may as well study to take the entry level desk job!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Rec level soccer is a great start, but it isn't going to produce many top players, it is the more costly travel type soccer at younger ages where the talent needs to be developed - but that is proving to be prohibitively expensive.

The joke is on all of you paying All this money when the US can’t even qualify for the Workd Cup. So much for your ‘top’ players.
Players in other countries are scouted out- usually playing in a dirt field somewhere.

Why do you care what I'm paying for so much?
If you want your kid to play in a dirt field because that's where they're gonna develop, be my guest.

Anonymous wrote:

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

Rec level soccer is a great start, but it isn't going to produce many top players, it is the more costly travel type soccer at younger ages where the talent needs to be developed - but that is proving to be prohibitively expensive.

The joke is on all of you paying All this money when the US can’t even qualify for the Workd Cup. So much for your ‘top’ players.
Players in other countries are scouted out- usually playing in a dirt field somewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get this because it was always for rich, white kids. At least when I grew up in the 60s and 70s, only schools in rich, white towns had a boys' soccer team. And FWIW they sure didn't have girls' soccer teams.

Our city (midwest) soccer was for Catholic kids, so mostly working class/blue collar/middle class.

It is a great sport for poor kids. All you need is a ball, shin guards and a grass field.

Are you from St Louis? Big youth soccer scene there, very inclusive.

How did you guess?

CYO soccer is huge there (and cheap).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NFL MLB NFL not packed exclusively with rich white kids who did travel football and camps.

American born kids who make it to the majors now a days do not come from poor backgrounds.

the system is different for latin players.

it's partly why you see a massive drop off of american blacks in mlb compared to the 60's and 70s

I thought that there have been studies that show that this drop is due to fewer fathers in the home.

Baseball is primarily a father/son sport, so in homes without fathers the kids are far less likely to even start baseball, or if they start they are far less likely to stick with it.

(This might also be why wealthier kids stay with baseball as 2 parent homes with active fathers tend to be, almost without exception, wealthier than other homes)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NFL MLB NFL not packed exclusively with rich white kids who did travel football and camps.

Seriously. NBA, in particular. Come on!

There are a lot of club scholarships and private school scholarships at the high school level for top players.

Basketball is interesting because at the high school and college level, it's actually much more profitable (or close to profitable) for the school than football in most cases...You just need a gym, basketballs, and shoes, and there is less coaching staff than football. Also less insurance than football since kids are less likely to have major injuries.

How do you think they get to be “top players?” Years of expensive coaching and playing time on travel teams. $$$$

Not for basketball.

Abby Wambach—year’s of drug abuse, alcohol and DUI is just as f@cked up as Hope.

She used to run her mouth about Klinnsmusing dual-citizenship players. And then her affair with the Christian mom-blogger that left her husband and 3-kids.

I hate how they parade these women around during the World Cup like they are saints...

What she's saying is that if you want to be at the top, say 50 in the country, that's what it costs. Sure any idiot can pick up a ball and kick around in a rec league or with friends. Try tennis, $15k per year is a drop in the bucket.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really can't stand Hope Solo. She has major issues.

She beats up family members, abuses alcohol and is a sore/bad loser. She insulted Sweden after her team lost to them in the Olympics. Disgusting and disgraceful.

I wouldn't listen to anything she has to say.

Well that’s just stupid.

She was a drunk adult that beat up get half sister and nephew. Classy lady.

She embarrassed herself with her poor loser act during the last Olympics. I love the Swede player that took the high road about Hope’s comments.

She tackled her 17-year old nephew and punched him in the face because he said actors had to have an “athletic mindset”. He is in theater. He walked away to another part of the house and she followed him. The family say she was estranged and they just let her back in because she always does stuff like that when drinking.

I’m in my 40s and have an 18, 22 and 23-year old nephew and the thought of beating them up is just insane. She’s 36.

Anonymous wrote:She's right. so many kids miss out
I work in title 1 schools with mostly Latino kids, they all want to play soccer but only get the chance when programs come to school. otherwise they are out of luck. or they have to wait to play on middle school or high school teams but by then, they are too into video games or just dont feel confident because of lack of experience

PP pointed out that most rec leagues offer scholarships.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really can't stand Hope Solo. She has major issues.

She beats up family members, abuses alcohol and is a sore/bad loser. She insulted Sweden after her team lost to them in the Olympics. Disgusting and disgraceful.

I wouldn't listen to anything she has to say.

Well that’s just stupid.

She was a drunk adult that beat up get half sister and nephew. Classy lady.

She embarrassed herself with her poor loser act during the last Olympics. I love the Swede player that took the high road about Hope’s comments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get this because it was always for rich, white kids. At least when I grew up in the 60s and 70s, only schools in rich, white towns had a boys' soccer team. And FWIW they sure didn't have girls' soccer teams.

Our city (midwest) soccer was for Catholic kids, so mostly working class/blue collar/middle class.

It is a great sport for poor kids. All you need is a ball, shin guards and a grass field.

Are you from St Louis? Big youth soccer scene there, very inclusive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get this because it was always for rich, white kids. At least when I grew up in the 60s and 70s, only schools in rich, white towns had a boys' soccer team. And FWIW they sure didn't have girls' soccer teams.

Our city (midwest) soccer was for Catholic kids, so mostly working class/blue collar/middle class.

It is a great sport for poor kids. All you need is a ball, shin guards and a grass field.

Yes. Super cheap sport to play unless you want instruction or an organized league for your child. Then it can get out of hand very quickly.

Anonymous wrote:I don't really get this because it was always for rich, white kids. At least when I grew up in the 60s and 70s, only schools in rich, white towns had a boys' soccer team. And FWIW they sure didn't have girls' soccer teams.

Our city (midwest) soccer was for Catholic kids, so mostly working class/blue collar/middle class.

It is a great sport for poor kids. All you need is a ball, shin guards and a grass field.