Anonymous wrote:One important thing that Europe gets right with their academies for basketball and soccer is the integrated approach where not just the sport is taught, but also the auxiliary necessities are covered.
My kids are fairly high level young basketball players and I end up playing the role of academy and it is a big ask. I have to make sure that their strength training is integrated with their sport and skill training, same for speed and agility work. Load management across the club and school games and practices, etc. I am actually fairly adept at this because I played at a national team level in Europe so I know what's needed, but would love to outsource most of it to an academy style setup where coaches actually work together. Surprised that we do not have it here in the states for basketball at least. Everyone seems to be running these little hustles instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sorry, they are playing basketball and football because those sports are affordable and offer paths to college and the pros not dependent on how much money a parent has

Please stop. Kids play these sports because these are the sports players prefer. They begin doing this LONG before they even think about college. Kids are not playing these solely or principally because they are cheaper. In any event, do you know how much AAU basketball costs for most kids? Do you have any idea how much additional training football players do? Kids have stopped playing baseball not because it has gotten expensive but because it has become less popular.

EYBL is free. The best kids aren't paying anything for training either. Once it's clear how good a kid is, training is free too because trainers advertise based on who they've trained.

AAU elite basketball is not free; personal coaches are not free; travel is not free. People love playing basketball because you can play by yourself, one-on-one, two-on-two, three-on-three, all with variations and improvements on both sides of the ball, day or night, outdoor for most of the year and sometimes indoor in most areas. It is the ultimate sport for kids without parents or siblings. And it is a lot of fun. It has some of the best elements of soccer in it - playing both sides of the ball, improvisation, showy skill, off the ball movement, and freedom from the authority of coaches or catchers or quartyerbacks. People are not playing because it is "free." They are choosing it because it is fun and as embedded in many parts of our culture as soccer is in others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sorry, they are playing basketball and football because those sports are affordable and offer paths to college and the pros not dependent on how much money a parent has

Please stop. Kids play these sports because these are the sports players prefer. They begin doing this LONG before they even think about college. Kids are not playing these solely or principally because they are cheaper. In any event, do you know how much AAU basketball costs for most kids? Do you have any idea how much additional training football players do? Kids have stopped playing baseball not because it has gotten expensive but because it has become less popular.

EYBL is free. The best kids aren't paying anything for training either. Once it's clear how good a kid is, training is free too because trainers advertise based on who they've trained.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe is 3-4 years ahead of us in technique and IQ. Realistically they start their professional journey at 13-14 so if you're an American and you go over at 18 years old you have a long road to travel. Why do we think so many American universities/colleges have so many international players on rosters from that continent? Those players realized their chances of going pro there is not going to happen so they take a free education and a chance to explore America. We set our precedent for college soccer and an MLS draft for whatever reason when it clearly doesn't work for the men's side. The women's side college and the NWSL work. We limit their bar for them with college soccer.


Things like our non relegation/promotion leagues and the other leagues is a whole different conversation, a whole different post.

At 13, 14 years old there are several high level players here who can hold their own technically and physically with peers in Europe. The individual IQ levels will be close or equal for some.

The differences are that the culture, coaching, training and collective tactical understanding of the game is higher there on average.
They will have 18 kids on their EDP1 or 2 level team that are all technically proficient, have good IQ, have parents who know and understand the game and have qualified knowledgeable coacheS
The team collectively will play quicker, faster because of the higher average IQ that can absorb more complex tactical approaches.

When a kid leaves here for the first time and lands in Croatia, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain for the first time at 18, the tactical understanding deficiency is wide.
Because of the pay-to-play system (which allows a checkbook roster of who can afford it) and lack of qualified youth coaches here, we'll always be behind.

The question is whether or not anyone who doesn't have an interest in playing professionally or is associated with the national team should care. European club supported academies are great for developing kids at no or low cost to those kids. The aren't enough professional clubs in the US with the resources to fully fund boys academies (that doesn't even account for the girls side which are also subsided by club in Europe) to ever approach that here. That means pay to play.

Too Funny.
America is the richest country in the world and yet the only country in the world where soccer is out of reach to the masses because of costs.

Kids in Europe and South America aren't all at Professional Academies or clubs subsidized by Pro Clubs.
There are many levels and tiers below Pro Div1 all the way down to small grass-roots clubs.
Many pay something yearly, none of them cost an arm and a leg.

We choose expensive pay-to-play to be our 'culture'

And it is quintessentially American to think money is the solution to everything. Just because you want to reallocate doesn't make you any different. The problem is and always be the attractiveness of most other sports to most American kids, including most athletically talented American kids. This is not one of many policy problems to address through organizational change, redistribution and grousing about wealth and the masses. You sound like a silly college freshman.

You may have a touch of dyslexia
People are saying money is the problem, not the solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:come on guys. in the suburbs of Paris there are THOUSANDS of young kids dreaming of becoming professional soccer players and balling for hours and hours every day whether they are on organized teams or not. we don't have anything that remotely comes close here. There must be 100 academies surrounding Paris... and thats one city (although a major one). ONE city.

Focusing on numbers is a fallacy. But what I will say is Europeans identify the real talents sooner and better. That’s where American soccer is dumb. Puslic said he became a pro from the training he received between 14-16. (Dortmond) Look at his body type - we are still largely focused on American football skills and make up (speed, height and strength). We are missing out on a lot of Xavi, Iniesta, and Messi.

The Europeans are developing the young talents sooner and better, with serious coaches for U6 to U12.
And parents don't have a say in how clubs/teams operate (granted the parents there are easily more knowledgeable)

Most American parents would not let their kid focus on soccer at the expense of school at U12 of the off chance that they may go pro. No US team can afford the kind of academy structure that effectively identifies and trains kids that young anyway. The closest that we have starts at high school and still is nowhere near the size of European academies even at that age level.

Where did the false narrative come from that in Europe soccer/sport is above education or that US Education is superior?

Do you think kids living at academies are focusing on school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As always, a lot of talk about Europe and European academies. Other countries seem to be producing top level talent. Uruguay is a country of 3M people and has half a dozen players that are at or above Pulisic’s level - Valverde, Darwin Nunez, Ugarte, Araujo, Betancur, Giminez, etc. These guys were born and raised in Uruguay, and almost all came up through different first division clubs in Uruguay and moved on at age 18/19 to bigger clubs in Europe.

Try saying Europe, Africa, South America, Asia in every comment re: soccer outside US

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:come on guys. in the suburbs of Paris there are THOUSANDS of young kids dreaming of becoming professional soccer players and balling for hours and hours every day whether they are on organized teams or not. we don't have anything that remotely comes close here. There must be 100 academies surrounding Paris... and thats one city (although a major one). ONE city.

Focusing on numbers is a fallacy. But what I will say is Europeans identify the real talents sooner and better. That’s where American soccer is dumb. Puslic said he became a pro from the training he received between 14-16. (Dortmond) Look at his body type - we are still largely focused on American football skills and make up (speed, height and strength). We are missing out on a lot of Xavi, Iniesta, and Messi.

The Europeans are developing the young talents sooner and better, with serious coaches for U6 to U12.
And parents don't have a say in how clubs/teams operate (granted the parents there are easily more knowledgeable)

Most American parents would not let their kid focus on soccer at the expense of school at U12 of the off chance that they may go pro. No US team can afford the kind of academy structure that effectively identifies and trains kids that young anyway. The closest that we have starts at high school and still is nowhere near the size of European academies even at that age level.

Where did the false narrative come from that in Europe soccer/sport is above education or that US Education is superior?

Anonymous wrote:As always, a lot of talk about Europe and European academies. Other countries seem to be producing top level talent. Uruguay is a country of 3M people and has half a dozen players that are at or above Pulisic’s level - Valverde, Darwin Nunez, Ugarte, Araujo, Betancur, Giminez, etc. These guys were born and raised in Uruguay, and almost all came up through different first division clubs in Uruguay and moved on at age 18/19 to bigger clubs in Europe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:come on guys. in the suburbs of Paris there are THOUSANDS of young kids dreaming of becoming professional soccer players and balling for hours and hours every day whether they are on organized teams or not. we don't have anything that remotely comes close here. There must be 100 academies surrounding Paris... and thats one city (although a major one). ONE city.

Focusing on numbers is a fallacy. But what I will say is Europeans identify the real talents sooner and better. That’s where American soccer is dumb. Puslic said he became a pro from the training he received between 14-16. (Dortmond) Look at his body type - we are still largely focused on American football skills and make up (speed, height and strength). We are missing out on a lot of Xavi, Iniesta, and Messi.

The Europeans are developing the young talents sooner and better, with serious coaches for U6 to U12.
And parents don't have a say in how clubs/teams operate (granted the parents there are easily more knowledgeable)

Most American parents would not let their kid focus on soccer at the expense of school at U12 of the off chance that they may go pro. No US team can afford the kind of academy structure that effectively identifies and trains kids that young anyway. The closest that we have starts at high school and still is nowhere near the size of European academies even at that age level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe is 3-4 years ahead of us in technique and IQ. Realistically they start their professional journey at 13-14 so if you're an American and you go over at 18 years old you have a long road to travel. Why do we think so many American universities/colleges have so many international players on rosters from that continent? Those players realized their chances of going pro there is not going to happen so they take a free education and a chance to explore America. We set our precedent for college soccer and an MLS draft for whatever reason when it clearly doesn't work for the men's side. The women's side college and the NWSL work. We limit their bar for them with college soccer.


Things like our non relegation/promotion leagues and the other leagues is a whole different conversation, a whole different post.

At 13, 14 years old there are several high level players here who can hold their own technically and physically with peers in Europe. The individual IQ levels will be close or equal for some.

The differences are that the culture, coaching, training and collective tactical understanding of the game is higher there on average.
They will have 18 kids on their EDP1 or 2 level team that are all technically proficient, have good IQ, have parents who know and understand the game and have qualified knowledgeable coacheS
The team collectively will play quicker, faster because of the higher average IQ that can absorb more complex tactical approaches.

When a kid leaves here for the first time and lands in Croatia, Belgium, Netherlands, Spain for the first time at 18, the tactical understanding deficiency is wide.
Because of the pay-to-play system (which allows a checkbook roster of who can afford it) and lack of qualified youth coaches here, we'll always be behind.

The question is whether or not anyone who doesn't have an interest in playing professionally or is associated with the national team should care. European club supported academies are great for developing kids at no or low cost to those kids. The aren't enough professional clubs in the US with the resources to fully fund boys academies (that doesn't even account for the girls side which are also subsided by club in Europe) to ever approach that here. That means pay to play.

Too Funny.
America is the richest country in the world and yet the only country in the world where soccer is out of reach to the masses because of costs.

Kids in Europe and South America aren't all at Professional Academies or clubs subsidized by Pro Clubs.
There are many levels and tiers below Pro Div1 all the way down to small grass-roots clubs.
Many pay something yearly, none of them cost an arm and a leg.

We choose expensive pay-to-play to be our 'culture'

And it is quintessentially American to think money is the solution to everything. Just because you want to reallocate doesn't make you any different. The problem is and always be the attractiveness of most other sports to most American kids, including most athletically talented American kids. This is not one of many policy problems to address through organizational change, redistribution and grousing about wealth and the masses. You sound like a silly college freshman.

Anonymous wrote:I will put it to you all like this:

- 80% of travel players belong in rec teams but their parents are fooled into thinking their kids can play soccer either by the coaches or organization $$$.
- 80% of travel players want to join a travel club because their friends play there and they have been brainwashed by the clubs into thinking that if you do not belong to a travel team you are not getting the best experience and you are a loser.
- 80% of travel coaches are inexperienced and/or have lost the passion and only want the paycheck. Some do not even have the appropriate coaching licenses yet they say they do (check your coach online). https://learning.ussoccer.com/#!/directory most have just the grassroots coaching license and that's a joke.
- 80% of travel coaches are former "soccer" players who could not get past college soccer and we know college soccer is not even close to pro in Europe, Latin America or Africa.
- 90% of travel players are all white kids who lack the soccer IQ and athletic soccer talent. See for yourself at the next travel game or tournament. See the difference between the players and how they touch the ball, trap the ball and pass the ball. Most are weak players. Most is the result of poor coaching and training they receive.
- 90% of talented soccer players are minorities who cannot afford to pay the $3k+ fees.
- All these "non-profit" soccer clubs in our country are nothing more than businesses that do not pay taxes and pay all directors and coaches a nice income for rec-level soccer.

I could go on and on but I think I made my point here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:come on guys. in the suburbs of Paris there are THOUSANDS of young kids dreaming of becoming professional soccer players and balling for hours and hours every day whether they are on organized teams or not. we don't have anything that remotely comes close here. There must be 100 academies surrounding Paris... and thats one city (although a major one). ONE city.

Focusing on numbers is a fallacy. But what I will say is Europeans identify the real talents sooner and better. That’s where American soccer is dumb. Puslic said he became a pro from the training he received between 14-16. (Dortmond) Look at his body type - we are still largely focused on American football skills and make up (speed, height and strength). We are missing out on a lot of Xavi, Iniesta, and Messi.

The Europeans are developing the young talents sooner and better, with serious coaches for U6 to U12.
And parents don't have a say in how clubs/teams operate (granted the parents there are easily more knowledgeable)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:sorry, they are playing basketball and football because those sports are affordable and offer paths to college and the pros not dependent on how much money a parent has

Please stop. Kids play these sports because these are the sports players prefer. They begin doing this LONG before they even think about college. Kids are not playing these solely or principally because they are cheaper. In any event, do you know how much AAU basketball costs for most kids? Do you have any idea how much additional training football players do? Kids have stopped playing baseball not because it has gotten expensive but because it has become less popular.