This is what I think is wrong.

If you look at the history of lower league soccer, yes. It's just one example. Most lower division teams here don't have the money to invest in youth programs.

I'm sure my work interviewing players caused the team to fail.

I shudder to think what you would do for a team. It also scares me that you're a journalism student.

 

To have a full, free of charge youth set-up, teams would have to invest thousands, if not hundreds of thousands. Teams don't have that kind of money.

LOL.

 

Minor league sports in the US are a tough business. The successful teams are typically subsidized by major league teams. Independent baseball teams (a sport that is significantly more popular than soccer) fail all the time.

So, given that, say, DC United can't afford to subsidize lower division teams the same way that the Washington Nationals can, I'm not seeing where you expect the required money to come from.

 

I haven't the faintest what it would cost to run an academy. It's certainly beyond the means of most, if not all lower division teams in the US.

The reason it's possible in other countries is because soccer is significantly more popular there than in the US.

 

i mean 2nd and 3rd division teams could have academies, but they wouldn't be free (most likely), and for them to make sense they'd have to be at least cheap enough so that they can attract as much potential talent as possible. And to be cheap enough, they'd have to find creative ways to deal with the added costs, which isn't an easy proposition in lower divisional sports.

 

In a sense, it already has... for example... if not for pro/rel in Denmark, Jimmy Nielsen would surely have quit and retired in 2008, because he would then not have been able to find a Superliga club that were interested in signing him (because of his "Casino-Jimmy" reputation), so he would then not have been able to join a Danish second-tier club heading straight for promotion... When they then later suffered relegation, he stayed on for 6 month, before he finally decided to retire... but then MLS came along and made him an offer he could not resist... the rest is history... pro/rel in Denmark is the reason why Jimmy Nielsen is still playing soccer and thus was able to join Sporting Kansas City, I'm sure you will agree, to the benefit of MLS.
.

 

You ask a simple question. Unfortunately for various reasons we have made soccer a very complex issue. It is not only the current USSF and MLS, the problem dates back from 1967 to 1984. The original NASL and USSF also ignored a quite vibrant ASL. The NASL of the 70's had a chance to create a second division, but ignored the opportunity to involve the ASL. The NASL and the USSF of the 70's also ignored some very strong ethnic leagues that were quite popular around the country.
The Ethnic clubs could formed the basis of a very strong third division. In the late70's to early 80's where it was evident that the NASL and USSF were not going to involve the ASL or the Ethnic clubs to create a true soccer pyramid of pro/rel soccer died at the professional level.
I believe in history. I like to learn from history. I was a young boy of 8 years old in 1975 and 18 years old when the outdoor professional leagues completely folded. At the time I really didnot think that pro/rel was the problem. I thought that Americans or Ethnic Americans simply did not care about soccer and that Americans were just indifferent to the sport. I was wrong, from successful NASL teams who drew well to quite a few ASL teams that drew well to Ethnic Clubs that also drew well. In regard to the Ethnic leagues I write on the Greater Los Angeles league which had clubs such as the Los Angeles Maccabees who played at Daniels Field in San Pedro.
Asa kid we went and watched the Greater Los Angeles league during the day and the LA Sky hawks of the ASL at night. The Greater LA league on occasion had 3.000 people in attendance.
At night. the Sky hawks would draw between 4,000 and 5,000 thousand. Also remember we had the Aztecs of the NASL. On the East coast had the very successful Metropolitan soccer. The Greek Americans and other Ethnic clubs drew very reasonable crowds of three to five thousand.
The point is soccer was very vibrant in the 70's but the powers to be the USSF and NASL turned there backs on these other leagues and eventually investment was pulled out of the ASL and Ethnic leagues because the owners of these clubs saw no reason to invest in the game if there was s no chance of playing in the first division. Oh by the way, the players of these ethnic clubs were making some very good cash money for each game played.
Again the USSF, NASL turned there backs on a chance to implement pro/rel. Reason, the NASL was more interested in charging franchise fees and making tons of cash. The people that were involved in the NASL and USSF did very well for themselves. What they did not what was good for the game in America.Create pro/rel!. The people in charge of the NASL and USSF wanted just to profit. Killed the Professional game. for well over a decade.
I read history and learn from it.
MLS and USSF 2012. The history of pro soccer continues here in America. Have they read there history? Some will say yes, look how successful the MLS is. Time will tell if pro soccer makes it.
If the MLS and the USSF include the professional soccer family in it's pyramid, I believe pro soccer will flourish. Soccer family meaning the clubs of the current NASL and USL clubs who can legitamely compete economically. The finances are a must. If the current MLS and USSF really want to make pro soccer work in this country they can make this happen. If this is about 24 or so owners and some people at the USSF profiting from World Cup rights and sponsorship deals and so on, it will never work. History we be written, lets hope it is for the good of the game in America.

 

It is being asked were the money to create academies should come from... the simple answer is that the FA should give a helping hand, like it is the case in Denmark... then were are the FA suppose to get the money from you would ask ...

Well, the Danish FA get 20% (around $14 million a year) of the Danish Superliga TV-deal... and mind you, it is not money they demand or are entitled to get, but 20% the Superliga clubs freely have agreed to let them have, so most of it can be used on specialized talent development programs, that also is going to benefit the Superliga clubs...

The money is of course not just distributed randomly by the FA. They look at how many youth internationals the clubs have been producing the past years, so the clubs that have done well are getting more money than clubs that are not showing progress... the clubs are then evaluated every year and the money is mainly used on some specially selected top quality coaches who are then placed in selected clubs around the country, with the purpose to develop the best youth players in order to prepare them better for playing at the highest club level and for the youth NT's...
.

 

The USSF already spends money on player development. However, if they're going to subsidize the academies established by individual clubs in the US, the MLS academies are going to be at the top of the list, rather than any theoretical academies run by D2 or D3 teams.

 

Well, don't get me wrong, Danish Superliga clubs are also at the top of the list in Denmark, though some D2 clubs actually do a better job and are ahead of some Superliga academies.

It was btw also asked how much an academy cost... the most expensive academies we got in Denmark cost a bit more than $2 million a year, but it can be done for much less... I would think that a D2 club could run a decent academy for around $400k or less a year it in the USA.... but again, most of the cost should be covered by the FA.... and don't forget that you would need some rules regarding transfer fees... it wont work if MLS clubs are just able to "steal" the best academy players from smaller clubs, not paying any transfer fees.
.

 

Interesting, that you use the word "steal". That is though what is exactly done hear in America because the current system allows this. The LA Galaxy is a perfect example of this. They claim that JOSE Villareal was a product of it's youth development system or as they term it here, a "home grown player". Far from the truth. Villareal came from a youth amateur club called the South Bay Force. The South Bay Force is a pay to play club. Pay to play meaning the youth players and the families pay a monthly fee to participate. This is another American Phenomenon.
The Galaxy paid absolutely $0 dollars to sign this young man. The Galaxy did not even buy a bag of balls for the club. The strange thing is hear in America, this practice is very well excepted.
Now, on the international transfer market Villareal is worth quite a bit of money even only after his first year as a professional. The Galaxy can sell him in a few years and probably command a pretty decent transfer request and the youth club that actually developed him the Force will get a nice pat on the back.

 

In that scenario, why should LA be required to pay the Force anything? Unless there are some more details missing, as far as I can tell, LA didn't owe the Force anything unless Villareal was under contract to that club, or LA had a contract with the Force. Villareal paid to get training and he ended up at the LA Galaxy. It seems like everyone got exactly what they bargained for in that scenario.

Now, if the people at the Force are doing a good job of identifying and training talent, it might be a smart move for LA to start subsidizing their operations. And, I think MLS rules should allow for LA to get special rights to players coming out of such an arrangement. But, as I'm sure you know by now, I'm in favor of an MLB-style minor league system for player development.

 

Why are you putting "funds" in quotes? The lack of money is pretty much the root of all the problems when it comes to player development in the US. Soccer simply isn't popular enough for there to be enough money for scouting and development.

 

Absolutely correct. It is not so much the scouting, which I also agree with, but a lack of professional clubs that could pay these players so they can make a living.

 

I took you off my ignore list, just because you toned down your rhetoric and made a little sense to this argument or subject. A club that produces a MLS player such as the Force did, should receive compensation. If this becomes standard practice, and the youth clubs get compensated well, it would ultimately end the pay to play culture. Technical Directors at these pay to play clubs might enjoy that style of compensation other than what it is today, which is chasing around families every 30 day's for the $100 dollar payment, which if you believe in this well, I will put you on ignore again.
MLB and Baseball well, that is what they are good at.

 

I couldn't care less whether you have me on ignore or not.

But, anyway, you still haven't explained why LA should pay the Force anything in the scenario you described. Unless they have some per-existing contract with the Force, why should LA be subsidizing their operations?

 

I should explain this too you? Back to ignore.

 

You never explained why they should pay the Force. They didn't have the kid signed to a contract. The kid was paying the team to play. Hell, the Galaxy youth did him a favor because now he didn't have to play.

 

What makes you think the Force won't charge the kids AND demand money from the MLS clubs, if you force the Galaxy to pay?

Right now, the Force doesn't need to be compensated, because it already got paid by the player.

 

Stone age thinking. What are you talking about?
If you stop charging players to play, because a family can not afford it, maybe you can find some better players. That is the point. Stop charging kids to play. If the Galaxy pick him up, the Galaxy can compensate the club.

 

I guess you'd rather go hide like a little girl, then. What are you doing on here if you're not willing to defend your viewpoints?

 

Stupid post. Your in the Flin stone ages. Ignore list.