Interesting Article

Read the article Big Business. Your talking your language. The clubs are killing the foundation of soccer and kids aren't playing it as much. People aren't going to pay for soccer if they cant afford it. If you continue to suck up rec teams and coaches kick them to curb and players thrown to the system it's only going to trend even further. Let's talk about that and what the article really says.

Dangling fool's gold.

How many more posts are going to say "your" instead of "you're"?

Just another reason why academics are more important than soccer.  Holy moly people.

If you are worried about grammatical errors you got way too much time. Read the article the truth is there. Go find another rec team to destroy.

Those who care about soccer in the United States could learn something from Belgium. Eighteen years ago, Belgium’s men's national soccer team lost in the first round of the YourApeeIn Football Championship.* It was a staggering failure, which prompted the national director of coach education, Kris Van der Haegen, to overhaul the way they trained football coaches. The main principle of the new approach was to put the players first, before coaches or teams, and to “create an environment of freedom” that restored the game’s creativity and fun. In 2015, Belgium became the world’s top-ranked team. “When things are going well, people don’t want to listen,” Van der Haegen said during an interview. The loss “was the perfect moment to get everyone around the table and ask what we were doing wrong.”

Linda Flanagan July 13 2018

Thats all well and good, except for one thing... Pay to play, the only country that has it, the only country that will never do well on the mens national level because of it.

USSF is trying to make the change. It goes back to revenue. Have you bought your season tickets. Building 50 thousandseat stadiums and filling them for every match. Protesting the powers that be to get us a women’s professional team. TV contracts for games and cooperate sponsors. Lol, these are just small cultural things that can be done to reduce the play to play model.

The pay to play exists in every country. The business model is just different. Instead of parents paying for the kids to play, those other countries parents are paying Jerry Jones prices for beer, a seat, and fan experience to watch the flagship team play in the various soccer leagues. The only difference is it's in the name of socialism because the "scholarships" (ie kids playing for free) come out of the corporate bucket. In the US, the parents pay for their kid directly to play soccer instead of buying season tickets to FCD. The clubs still provide "scholarships" but the model is not so much blatant socialism... Kids receiving financial help in most cases truly need the help and it's the community banding together to help each other out in a more direct way.

Every business (even non profits) are all about making money.. If you can't make money, there is no reason spend time/money/effort to do it.

TxFutbal wrote:The pay to play exists in every country.  The business model is just different.  Instead of parents paying for the kids to play, those other countries parents are paying Jerry Jones prices for beer, a seat, and fan experience to watch the flagship team play in the various soccer leagues.  The only difference is it's in the name of socialism because the "scholarships" (ie kids playing for free) come out of the corporate bucket.  In the US, the parents pay for their kid directly to play soccer instead of buying season tickets to FCD.  The clubs still provide "scholarships" but the model is not so much blatant socialism... Kids receiving financial help in most cases truly need the help and it's the community banding together to help each other out in a more direct way.

Every business (even non profits) are all about making money..  If you can't make money, there is no reason spend time/money/effort to do it.

Your are correct.  However, what you fail to identify is how the difference in the source of the money leads to differences in the focus of the clubs.  In both cases, the clubs actions are driven by what it will take to keep the revenue stream coming in, and hopefully, to increase the revenue stream.  

In the case where the money is being spent on tickets, concessions, souvenir jerseys, etc., the onus is on the club to do what it takes to keep those revenue streams alive, which is done by spending money wisely to identify, cultivate, and develop talented players that can be used as club assets, either by generating revenue by playing for the team that people pay to watch, or by being sold to other clubs.

In the case where the money is being spent by the individual families on their children, then the club is going to focus on identifying players whose families can afford to pay, and then figuring out what they have to do keep those individual families "happy" so that they will keep paying.  That leads to a soccer landscape where kids from lower economic status are naturally under-represented, along with an unbalanced focus on winning over development at the youth levels.

You make a valid point. A question. Has a club ever denied a scholarship to a player in need that had the ability to play at the level the club needed her to play?

For kids who need help financially that don't have the ability there is a low cost alternative called rec soccer.

I think it's the norm rather than the exception that coaches routinely scour the rec fields/middle schools/high schools looking for the 1 or 2 kids that will take their team from OK to a state cup contender. They will do whatever it takes financially to make that happen. Tell me I am wrong on this?

Again, I don't see much difference in the system the US uses vs. the rest of the world except the number of kids playing in the US is probably not as high as the rest of the world. I would also say that the rest of the world may encourage unstructured play vs the US where kids figure out the game of soccer on their own vs the development approach the US uses which is to boil it down so much that the kids don't have to think.

Soccer is as much about thought process and creative problem solving as it is about athleticism and fitness. Unfortunately we put more value in athleticism/size that we do about thinking/creativity.

ProDallas wrote:It is an interesting and timely article. However, articles like this making the same points are written and published all the time. What this, and the many other articles like it, lacks are clear insights into solutions to the challenges outlined. I would encourage Mr. Cook to research and provide a follow-up piece focused on solutions to each of the challenges he outlined.

If he's so passionate about this cause, I encourage Mr. Cook to meet those kids at his son's school and introduce them to some club teams in their community. There's a lot of teams in the Chicagoland area where his bio says he's from. In general, all the people with opinions about soccer in America need to focus their energy on solutions rather than writing the same old articles about everything that's wrong. We all know clubs provide financial support to talented players who need help.

Meanwhile, all we can do as parents is provide our own DDs with the best opportunities to grow in the game and maximize their potential. And, if we see kids with what we perceive to be great talent, though from families without financial means, we can certainly help steer them to the clubs that provide financial aid if we feel so inclined.

+1
I've seen the same article multiple times a year on different publications, but as you point out... No solutions. It's no different that government politics. All pointing to blame but no solutions.

TxFutbal wrote:You make a valid point.  A question.  Has a club ever denied a scholarship to a player in need that had the ability to play at the level the club needed her to play?   

Yes.  Clubs have a limit as to how many kids they can scholarship and remain break-even or profitable.  If the kid is a clear standout, and they have a clear financial situation, then they will get a scholarship.  However, if a kid is good, but does not necessary stand out from others in the group, the kid from the group who can afford to pay will be the one that ends up on the team.  I can say with a high level of confidence, that the majority of GDA, ECNL, and LH teams have 0 scholarship players on them, and the ones that do, have no more than 1 player on scholarship.  I would be shocked if the % of those teams with >1 scholarship player is above 5%.  I've been a TM multiple years, and have several friends who have been TM's.  Scholarships, especially on the girls side, happen less than most people think, especially at the big clubs.

TxFutbal wrote:For kids who need help financially that don't have the ability there is a low cost alternative called rec soccer.

 

Correct, and along with it goes generally inferior coaching and competition that will stunt the development of such a player vs a similar player that has access to better training and competition.

TxFutbal wrote:I think it's the norm rather than the exception that coaches routinely scour the rec fields/middle schools/high schools looking for the 1 or 2 kids that will take their team from OK to a state cup contender.  They will do whatever it takes financially to make that happen.  Tell me I am wrong on this?

 

You are wrong on the coaches spending time scouring rec fields, middle schools, high schools, especially in lower income neighborhoods, and especially looking for female players.  Most just advertise and wait for players to show up at their tryouts/practices.  You are correct that they will do whatever it takes to help the "special" player with financial hardships, but they are not spending significant time or $$ to find them, they are mostly waiting for them to show up on their doorstep, or be identified through families already on their team(s).

TxFutbal wrote:Again, I don't see much difference in the system the US uses vs. the rest of the world except the number of kids playing in the US is probably not as high as the rest of the world.  I would also say that the rest of the world may encourage unstructured play vs the US where kids figure out the game of soccer on their own vs the development approach the US uses which is to boil it down so much that the kids don't have to think.  

Soccer is as much about thought process and creative problem solving as it is about athleticism and fitness.  Unfortunately we put more value in athleticism/size that we do about thinking/creativity.  

% of kids playing in the US is smaller, but total number of kids is actually higher in the US than most of the countries that just competed in the World Cup.  Your points on unstructured play and developing creativity and problem solving are likely valid, but frankly, I disagree with much of the rest of your response.

I guess it depends on your experience. I agree with you that the big 3 probably could care less because they just cast a wide net and the little fish just get snatched up.

The mid size clubs and the Indies I guarantee are out at the rec fields and using the network to find players the bigs don't catch I will also surmise the bigs don't have to scholarship as much at the club level. The teams may shoulder some of that burden where there is a need.

The mids and Indies have a much larger allocation of their budgets to scholarships. I know of many ECNL players on full rides at the non big 3 clubs, and know in many circumstances where players in LH/APL/PPL that need help get help.

Not every club is like those who wear Red, Blue, or Red/White/Blue jerseys, but then again, most clubs don't have the overhead that the big 3 have.. Gotta pay for those fancy complexes, marketing salaries, and for all those coaches who are primarily focused on selling the dream to get the most $$ out of the parent wallet.

It would be interesting to see the detail financial statements for the big 3 non-profit clubs vs the financials for the mids/indies. My guess is they are vastly different in where money is spent.

TxFutbal wrote: I know of many ECNL players on full rides at the non big 3 clubs

I sincerely challenge you on that, but there's honestly no way for either of us to prove the other wrong on here.  I'll grant you "a few", but definitely not "many".  Again, rarely more than 1 player on a roster of 16-20.  Have been at 4 of the 5 ECNL clubs over the years.  If you've been a TM at any of those 5 clubs, you know that team finances aren't set up at those clubs to accommodate multiple scholarship players on a roster, even at the ECNL level.

Dangling that fool's gold.

Bling Bling

Watch "Highlander Kurgan Church Scene - I Have Something To Say" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/-bOKsOveYD0

The articles are clear on who is responsible for the decline of US soccer. All other conversations are meaningless.