I run a recreational youth soccer league for grades k-8. In the past our leagues have all been coed. For the fall season I decided to make the leagues boys only and girls only for grades 1-4. The main reason for the decision was a sharp decline in the participant of girls in when they get into 2nd grade. The league for kindergarteners is pretty much 50% boys and 50 % girls. By the time we get to the 2nd grade league it is almost 75%/25% with teams having 2 or 3 girls and 10-12 boys. A few very upset mothers have claimed the new changes are sexist and that it will hurt the girls in the program. Any opinions?
What I've experienced is that up to the first grade level it is OK to have coed teams. Above this level you start to see physical differences between the boys and girls that make it tougher for the girls to compete. Not that the girls are less skilled - on the contrary they are usually more skilled, more coordinated, and more amenable to coaching than the boys. But the boys are starting to get faster and rougher in their play. They will win most of the loose balls and the girls can get frustrated. Small sided games will mitigate this effect since there isn't as far for the ball to go. At even older grades socialization starts to play a role and it is harder to coach coed teams. Do these moms complaining about sexism have any other suggestions for the drop-off in girl participation?
They claim poor coaching and that the other girls are more of the cheerleader type. Even after I explain all my reasons for the new format, they still think it will be bad for their daughters because they are good enough to play with the boys. My response to that is that the girls league will be just like all the rest of the leagues; some good players, some average players and some below average players. Thanks for the response, it is kind of what I thought people that knew soccer would say.
The program my kids started out in has coed at U6, but separates girls from boys at U8. What often happened at U6 is that the boys tended to be ball hogs while the girls had figured out the idea of being part of a team a lot quicker. The top level girls could easily continue to play with the boys for many years, but the average girls were better off playing with other girls and I believe most of the better girls would prefer playing with their friends too. Many of the top girls teams would scrimmage the boys teams. I saw no difference in size, strength and straight out speed between girls and boys at U8 or U10. I did feel that boys tended to be quicker, but the girls ability to work as a team often compensated. Perhaps the solution to your problem is to have separate gender teams, but if a girl wants to continue to play with the boys and is capable, let her. I think you'll find that most will prefer playing on the girls teams with only a few interested in the boys. Just make sure both sexes get the same training.
Why not make it optional for a girl to sign up for a boys' team? There might only be a few who want to, but why not let them?
this was my thought...if they want to play with the boys..let them. i know of several girls at my daughter's age that wouldn't play if our teams were co-ed. some of the rec girls they play now are too rough..but just putting a boy in there would rattle them. ours are coed at peanuts 3-4 one sex only from 5-12 13 & up -are coed again only because they don't have enough players to field a full division in either sex. most girls at this age have moved onto travel and only play rec for fun. they are the girls that are serious about soccer, play on travel and and have no problem playing with and beating the boys. at our rec coaches vs. travel coaches game..we had two young women (20ish) that played. it was great to see these two women playing against all those men and winning the ball. it gave new meaning to the term... "No fear".
Our club is co-ed at "micro-soccer" (i.e. U-7). The recreational league, which starts at U-8, is not, up to high school rec, which is co-ed. We also have a very large adult co-ed league locally. The co-ed youth teams do not have a specified number of female players. The adult co-ed allows no more than five male field players. I've even run across some high school varsity boys' teams with two or three female players. My (female) middle child did not like playing with girls. It was her strong preference to play on a "mixed" team. (She was the mix.) She played with boys up through U-11 rec, when she went to a "classic" team (known as "travel" or "club" teams in some areas of the country). She chose to play on a boys "B" team, rather than a girls' "A" team. She was a tough, very vocal, not afraid to go in hard sweeper and won a lot of respect from the boys on the team. Having said that, my experience is that co-ed games, even at the youth level, are just played differently. If the boys think that they can ignore the girls and just not pass to them, they, eventually, figure out that they are effectively playing 6 v 11, which doesn't work too well. Girls need to figure out that they have to be agressive or they won't see the ball. Teams with good female players will be successful. If this is recreational youth play, I don't see much of a problem with co-ed teams. If players are really looking to build skills and so forth, they shouldn't be in a recreational environment anyway. Co-ed teams allow you to more easily form teams, since you have extra flexibility that numbers give you. If you really want to encourage teams to get the girls involved in play, perhaps you could have a rule like "goals scored by female players count two."
What is the reasoning for allowing a girl to play on a boys' team? What is the reasoning for allowing a girl to play on a boys' team, but not allowing a boy to play on a girls' team? If the 2nd question is allowed, defend that as not being sexist. In my experience girls develop better on all girls teams. When you have an outstanding player, she should be moved to a competitive team, not a boys' rec team. One reason that hasn't been brought up: If a girl is having success because of being ahead physically, putting her onto a boys team will only encourage her to use speed/size as an advantage, sacrificing skill development she'd get on a competitive team, and leaving her with nothing when the others catch up.
As mother of a U11 girl playing on a coed team I must register in on this discussion. Yes, I agree most girls will prefer to play with girls and you will have greater participation by offering teams for girls and coed teams. I also agree that you must allow girls the opportunity to play on the coed team. Everyone benefits from the coed environment. Girls bring team building and communication skills to the boys that coaches appreciate. If a girl wants to play with the boys, let them. Our club offers girls and coed teams, it offers the best solution to attracting as many players as possible. Isn't this what we all want? More players = more fun.
Please respond to these questions. I really don't understand how you can allow one, but not the other. My club went from co-ed and girls to boys and girls for this and many other reasons. What is the reasoning for allowing a girl to play on a boys' team? What is the reasoning for allowing a girl to play on a boys' team, but not allowing a boy to play on a girls' team? If the 2nd question is allowed, defend that as not being sexist.
Easy, First of all you are not forming gender specific teams but a girls league. You create the girls league for several reasons. 1. to increase participation (girls parents are weray of puting girls and boys together) 2. The perceived more agressiveness of boys. see number 1 3. Boys usually out number the number of girls 2 sometimes 3 or 4 to 1 There is no boys league just a coed league and a girls league. Not sexist
at the younger ages, i would not have a problem with putting a non-agressive boy on a girls team. it would be better than the kid quitting because the boys are too rough. just because he is male..doesn't mean he is naturally aggressive. but i don't think many boys...would want to be on a girls team.
But haven't there been battles in the past over girls wanting to play in boys only sports such as football and baseball? Why can't the lawsuits go both ways? The girls don't want to play with boys, they go to the all girls team. The boys don't want to play with girls, they have nothing. You call that fair/not sexist? There's no sound reasoning to disallow a boy from joining a girls team. It's all based on sexist prejudices.
Not boys teams just traditionally boys. It is not MNFL it is the NFL. It is not the MPGA but it is the LPGA, WNBA etc. To call it sexist suggest that I ignore biology. Men are naturally bigger faster stronger than women because of someting called testoterone. Testosterone give men and unfair advantage over women in athletics. However, there are some women (very few) that may have the ability to compete with men and they should and do (most of the times) get the chance to compete at the highest level in their chosen sport. I again reiterate that the highest professional leagues are not male leagues just dominated by men because of the testerone advantage. To allow a boy to join a girls team it would now be a coed team would it not? The reason we do not allow boys to play on the girls side are those that I stated in the last post.
Just wanted to thank everyone for their input. The season just ended and our 1st and 2nd grade girls league was full with 10 teams of 14 girls. Last year we had 81 girls, this year 140.
Missed this thread before, but we're in the middle of our first year of offering a U10 girls league. Our U6, U8 and U12 leagues are co-ed, and we have two U10 leagues, one co-ed and one all girls. In the past, we had teams of 15-18 for U10s, and then played two 6v6 games simultaneously with the teams and we had 8-9 teams. With only 8-9 teams we didn't have enough teams to go with co-ed and all girls leagues. this year we went smaller teams, I have 9 girls, and we're playing 6v6. Our limiting factor had been the number of coaches, but we recruited more, so we have 11 co-ed teams and 4 all girl teams. Overall, it has been much better for the girls to have an all-girls league. Some stronger girls are playing co-ed, so theoretically they could be getting better playing stronger competition, but in my limited observation of them on gamedays, they seem to be standing still. Could be coaching, could be that they are younger (the three girls I'm thinking of are 8, so in the younger half of the age bracket) and could be the coaching. My girls have responded fabulously and my two best players have thrived as being the best on the team, rather than just window dressing on a team with good boys. Plus, being girls, they really care about each other, and this is the best team, as far as being a team and playing as team, that I've ever had. They have improved so much playing all girls, that they are more aggressive and assertive going to goal. This has been, by far, the most enjoyable year I've had coaching.
That's what the leagues here in northern VA do. You gradually get fewer and fewer girls in the co-ed league as the physical differences between boys and girls get greater. USATOWIN - You know any boys that want to play on a girls' team?
Just as I sometimes wish we could play some boys down an age group, I wish we could play a boy on a girl's team. For some kids, it might help their individual development to play in a league where it is less physical. The style of play might also help them.
I'd delete the word "unfair" from that sentence. And I think what usatowin is saying is not necessarily that boys would want and be allowed to play on the girls' team - once they're mixed, it's co-ed whether there are more boys or more girls. But that having (1) girls only and (2) co-ed is somewhat sexist, and I don't disagree with him. I think the solution to that is to have (1) girls only, (2) co-ed, and (3) boys only. Because if you think girls' sensitivities are worth considering to form a girls-only team which the girls will be happier on, then you should certainly feel that boys' preferences are also worth considering and maintain at least some boys only teams.
I can't really disagree with that, but once you reach a certain age there just aren't that many girls who want to play co-ed if a girl's team is available. Maybe if you had a huge club, you could maintain 3 leagues but I think in the real world you just have to accept a girls league and a de facto boys league (which is technically co-ed). If you did have 3 leagues, it could end up being more like division 1 (boys) and division 2 (coed), if boys on a lower skill level preferred coed. If your club has 3 separate leagues, I'd be interested in hearing how it works out.
Well, once you reach a certain age and start including travel teams in addition to rec. teams, I don't see that you really need the co-ed teams at all any more - I think those girls that wanted to play with the boys would then be better served by playing with and competing against other top travel girls, not just average boys.
This thread is famous! Number one on my Google search. I am interested is pushing our league towards offering girls only league to complement the coed leagues. What I am looking for is documentation supporting such a move, perhaps a recommendation from a nation or state accredited soccer organization. Does anyone know of any such info? I am also interested in Illinisoccer’s claim of a 75% increase in female participation. Does anyone have the similar experience of going from co-ed to gender specific? What we suffer from is the chronic problem described in this thread, girls stop registering as they get older. I want to keep my girls in the game and I know they will be more willing to stick with it if they can be in a league in which they are competitive.
Is the dropoff gender specific? I was quizzing our state USYSA director about Academy versus Recreational players and the breakdown of who made the move to competitive. They hadn't looked at that metric, but he went on to talk about the dropoff of participation at age 12 or so. His analysis went beyond gender, his thoughts were about the pressure put on kids by their parents. We routinely play U10 girl teams in our Academy set up - they are just as competitive as the boys. I know at some point the physicality of the boys will take that over, but for now the girls can keep up with and/or pound the boys.
So I went back an looked at our rosters. In our league both girls and boys drift away at an approximately equal pace. Looks like I was off-base with my comment. It was my perception but not the reality. We had a game last night and I tried something I had never done before. I started the second half with all five girls on the field and only a boy in goal. They did pretty well against a co-ed team (with one *star*) and managed to put some offensive pressure on the other team. I was pleased. I am having a tough time making headway with our president. He is very obstinate but I am having trouble figuring out why. I am considering requesting next season an all girls team within a co-ed division. Has anyone else tried this at a rec level? I certainly do not want to sacrifice some girls so I can prove a point.