I have to agree with this. It’s not like he’s so technically deficit that he can’t coach kids. Hell, he might even be a better coach than player, who knows? What I really like is that he gives a lot of kids a positive role model.
Artificial turf. They're not full size and most are being built at schools. NYCFC, Adidas and USSF are pitching in significant sums.
Both the championship and b2 are at least equal to (and in championship’s case, better) than MLS. I can’t stand this first division mentality that won’t acknowledge that those second division are better than most first divisions around the world (including MLS).
I think the biggest teams in MLS could challenge for a playoff place in the Championship. Certainly MLS matches are less predictable and more exciting thanks to parity. I watch several Championship matches a season and there's a lot more hoofing out of defense than in the American leagues.
In general, how much do championship teams spend on transfers and players. With no salary cap I could see this happening, hypothetically.
Top much, which is why so many of the clubs are $10 millions in debt. The latest average salary I can find for the Championship was $518k in 2015/16. Toronto's average in 2017 was $840k. However it's apples and oranges. There's obviously a huge disparity between the highest and lowest paid players in MLS. Plus MLS salaries include reserve and supplementary players many of whom make less than $60k. It would interesting to compare preferred starting 11 or 16 salaries.
Oh, also Championship players tend to be older and command higher salaries than younger players of similar ability. MLS has signed 26 South American players in 2018 with an average age of 22.076.
A lot of the transfer fees are undisclosed but I suspect the billionaire owned clubs finishing in the top 4 spent $10 millions, while smaller clubs or those vastly in debt relied on free transfers, free agents and loans.
Questions on if middle and high school soccer can or cannot go to spring AND fall seasons? In my opinion, this might be one of the best ways to target the pay to play problem and would have a drastic impact on the popularity of the sport.
I think they mainly have fall seasons but my question is so we have the teaching/coaching resources to coach soccer, track and baseball/softball in the Spring. Surely the money would be better spent on grants for small academies where litter could get dedicated coaching outside of school. Contrary to the media myth a lot of coaches only charge a minimal amount to cover costs. NYCFC provides local organizations with financial support enabling over 4,000 kids to train and play for free. It would be great if we could expand that to communities not currently served by MLS.
Not trying to be an ass, but I don’t understand your point... if you can clarify what you mean. I’m speaking of a USSF initiative to press the state school sport systems to extend having spring and fall seasons for middle and high school. The point being is not every one will have access to DA’s or even be able to play club soccer... it’s almost impossibile for less than affluent families to engage on this path. And, while I’m not arguing against the DA/club soccer path, it would be nice to have an alternative approach. More, I’d like to see the USSF help train some of these school coaches to raise the overall bar. In theory, this would not necessarily end pay to play, but a player wouldn’t have to pay to play year round soccer.
I agree with your general premise, what I'm not sure about is how much of a priority this would be for schools. At least here, soccer is pretty low on the school sports pantheon. At my son's middle school, a sizable percentage of the athletes play multiple sports: the spring lacrosse team is basically a merger of the football and soccer teams. I'm sure some of the soccer team would want to play in the spring, but enough to field a team? I don't know that the serious soccer kids want to play with the rec league benchwarmers. And that assumes there are even enough to field a team. I suppose some smaller schools could maybe play together, like the homeschool teams do, but this gets complicated when it comes to divisioning. Maybe futsal in the spring?
Interesting and relevant WSJ article on Belgium's emergence from nowhere in what seems to be a sustainable fashion (try opening in incognito mode if it's behind a paywall): https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-pr...2Kk75uH0ctlPexCtc&reflink=article_email_share
What I mean is, many schools aren't going to prioritize soccer over other sports in the Spring and probably don't have the resources to do so. The USSF offers training for school coaches but it's expensive, cheaper than England, but way more expensive than other European countries. Plus the cost of travel is more expensive than in Europe. According to the following link, as of the date of the article, 43,000 people had passed the coaching F licence but only 4,500 had A licences and 2,500 A licences, more than England but they don't have the population or geographical spread. http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/the91stminute/2016/07/the-high-cost-of-american-coaching/ And coaching in the US has to be split between boys and girls, while in must other countries high school girls don't play organised soccer. So the issues include: Motivation Resources Cost Timing Geography But there are volunteer coaches popping up across the country outside of high schools who charge just enough to choice costs. Pay to play isn't as big an issue as the media suggests. It's mainly used by middle-class families for college prep. IMG for instance isn't just a soccer academy, they coach all NCAA sports. Professional players are a by-product. https://www.imgacademy.com/about-img-academy Their offerings include boarding school and they operate in multiple countries. What USSF could do is slash the cost of a and b licences and conduct the courses around the country. But even then little Bobby Lee isn't going have access to professional coaching in Lamar, Nebraska. So we have to concentrate resources somewhere and the big urban areas will give us the biggest bang for the buck. And this is where MLS and USL teams can help, by partnering with USSF, cities and sponsors to increase the number of soccer spaces and ensure that local coaches get adequate training.
I think we're all in agreement that more low cost playing opportunities are needed in more places, and it's probably going to require some unorthodox solutions. Church teams may be a possibility, but that's probably not going to be much higher quality than rec leagues. There are scenarios where this could work, but the coordination required to get it started at more than a local level is daunting. The problems with any approach are going to be around being exclusive (i.e. limited to the best), the scale of the applicant pool, and who is going to pay for it.
Not to mention having available fields to play on. Most schools don't have 10 fields designated for games. There would be a ton of scheduling conflicts to iron out: Girls Lax, Boys Lax, Boys Soccer, Girls Soccer, That's a lot of wear and tear on fields. Plus some high schools won't allow other sports to play on the football field. Field maintenance isn't cheap. This could potentially lead to more artificial surfaces as well. I also agree with you on having enough players available. As you pointed out, kids like to play multiple sports. I had a lot of friends who played Soccer in the Fall and Lax in the Spring.
Field maintenance can be cheap. As a keeper in England my goal area would be iced over in the winter, a muddy puddle in the Spring and as hard as rock in the summer (I still have the scar tissue below my knees). During late summer the council would reseed and I'd get a few weeks' break. We never wore gloves or long pants back then either so of my team was playing well I'd either freeze or slowly be sucked in to the quagmire.
I am in the camp that things are improving. Although, I like the ideas that are being debated in this thread. The amount of young talent that is being produced is unprecedented. Age 20 Keaton Parks (Benfica) Haji Wright (NASL, Schalke) Isiah Young (union academy, Werder Bremen II) Age 19 Pulisic (bvb) Weston McKennie (fcd academy, Schalke) Nick Taitague (Schalke) Age 18 or younger Paxton Pomykal (fcd homegrown) Jesus Ferreira (fcd homegrown) Bryan Reynolds (fcd homegrown) Chris Richards (fcd homegrown, loan to Bayern Munich) Tim Weah (mls academy, signed with PSG) Josh Sargent (Img, Werder Bremen) Ayo Akinola (tfc homegrown) Chris Goslin (Atlanta homegrown) Will Vint (u18 Manu) Taylor Booth (rsl academy, possibly at Bayern Munich) This list is not all encompassing... I am sure i am missing some prospects. It seems like every week you hear about a new young player heading over to Europe.
Haji Wright spent most of his youth in the LA Galaxy Academy. He spent part of a year with the Cosmos B team in NPSL.
Adding to the list above Age 20 Luca de la Torre (Fulham) Brooks Lennon (RSL Academy, Liverpool youth, RSL) Age 19 Tyler Adams (nyrb homegrown) age 18 or younger Carlos Dos Santos (union Academy, Benfica) Chris Gloster (nyrb academy, Hannover) Indiana Vassilev (img, Aston Villa youth)
Hopefully, if I successfully articulated anything in this thread, it’d be yes, I know things have been done to improve youth development.... but as soon as the conversation ends with that’s good enough then I have a problem with it. We should never rest on our laurels... there’s a lot that needs to be done to improve the overall picture. And while we have taken steps forward there are some areas we haven taken a step back... it’s not ALL forward as it’s not all bad.
They’re probably the two best teams for developing home grown players. Meanwhile, Portland, New England, Colorado, and way more than not are not fielding their home grown players. I’d say it’s a good sign, but that doesn’t mean that we’re at where we should be either.
They’re probably the two best teams for developing home grown players. Meanwhile, Portland, New England, Colorado, and way more than not are not fielding their home grown players. I’d say it’s a good sign, but that doesn’t mean that we’re at where we should be either.
Actually, I think Dallas is doing a very bad job, and those numbers that some put forth are very deceiving. Ulloa is 26. Won't ever be good enough for the USMNT, yet he counts on that list. Reaves counts on that list. 22, and will be lucky to keep an MLS job. Acosta, Gonzalez who've been around for years (and aren't improving) are on that list. Players who weren't on that list include Pomykal, Servania, Richards, Ferreira, Reynolds, etc. They have 6 HGP's eligible for US youth teams under contract, only one even made the 18 for that match. RSL is doing an excellent job, and those guys play. Its a shame their best younger prospects like Booth, Soto, Ledezma are leaving the club for Europe. Look how well they've developed Glad, Acosta, Saucedo and Lennon. I think there are certain MLS clubs that are willing to use younger players (RSL, Philly, NYRB, Seattle). I think the best path for players out of their academy is signing with the MLS team, although if they get a good opportunity in Europe, thats not bad either.