https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/sports/us-soccer-berhalter.html Unsettling article on the leadership of US Soccer and the environment created by its managing.
"Current and former employees have been excoriating the federation’s top executives online in an effort to alert leaders to what they called a ‘toxic’ culture." Sounds as though we're in good company!
"Others lamented that advancement inside the federation is limited by a core group of top executives who have controlled the most senior positions for a decade or more." Sounds like the modern workplace. Relatively flat structure, where the higher ups are solidified into their positions and aren't leaving anytime soon. The only way to move around is laterally or out. If you are looking to accumulate titles, this is not an organization for you.
Has to be untrue. These people are all making decisions correctly and ably, ensuring we will be challenging for a World Cup in 2026!
I think they are totally aware but are part of the system. It is no coincidence that Das, who has a job at the NY Times which doesn't care about soccer, wrote this. The guys at SI sometimes do this, but then seem to get so much blowback, they don't do it again for awhile. Strauss is still talking about his German/American anti-JK piece. But he hasn't written anything like that since and thinks all talks about Fed problems something to laugh about. Wahl wrote the piece during the election about Sunil and Flynn stumping with Carter. But then he went out of his way to write negative stuff about Wynalda (Das and the NYT also did a hit piece on Wynalda iirc). I pay for the Athletic. They are subscription so you would think Tenorio and company would be independent. But even if you are not paid by USSF or its partner SUM (much of the media), then you are addicted to the Access. Very little of anything critical comes out of the Athletic. If anything, usually the pro-Fed puff pieces ("Bradley loves his kids") comes from there. The same is true for much of the other media. You just can't make a living writing on these topics and get on the USSF bad side. It is understandable. But that is why places like this thrive on negativity and why quasi-media types like podcasts and blogs are supplanting these traditional media places for the best analysis. It is obvious there are serious problems with USSF and we can all see that. Just look at how much litigation they are involved in. It is obvious that Jay Berhalter has to go. Give him Carter's old job if you have to.
No surprise. This has been the case for a long time. Little to no accountability. Needs a long flush...
Popcorn ready as several USSF/MLS/Berhalter backers enter the fray. I’m particularly interested in seeing gogorath, CMest, Mahtzo1 and especially OfficeSpace. Leading arguments would be 1) silly to listen to anonymous complainers 2) just because there’s a culture of inside baseball where decision making is being driven by a small circle of people who probably have conflicting interests, it doesn’t mean that it has anything to do with the USMNT of course It’s sad when the Grey Lady starts wearing tin foil.....
Similarly, I'm looking forward to the appearance of certain posters who viewed the much discussed Straus/Sporting News piece as a work of yellow journalism but who will now treat this Times piece as if it's gospel...
And here's the first! a comparison to a different article showing the other side is just as bad! If this has to do with Klinsy, I'm gonna FREAK OUT JERRY.
Not to turn this political but you are exactly correct and it's why so many more young people are supporting more radical, burn it to the ground, candidates for political elections than in the previous generations. I don't know if it's social media or cell phones or what but there's such a sense of unfairness in American culture at the moment. USSF is a symptom of this and honestly a fairly extreme example. They've coalesced all the power amongst a tight group of people and insulated those people from ever having to give up any real power. It really does remind me of how a Soviet communist group would run things except instead of a threat of violence, they use money and access to threaten anyone who would buck the system. The election of Cordeiro in February 2018 was a dark, dark moment in US soccer history. It's the day that I knew that we were so dug in on the wrong track that getting off it is going to be impossible. I applaud what these employees are doing and I hope they all get great jobs elsewhere and continue speaking out but the fact is none of the higher-ups will care enough to do anything other than engaging in petty retribution if they can find out who they are.
Occasionally the NY Times' corporate board allows a writer to do a muckraking piece in the political realm or otherwise, telling close to the truth about the corruption within the establishment, before going back to being part of it to maintain the status quo. This allows them to: cultivate credibility among readers who identify as supposedly reasonable moderates who have a little suspicion but not too much ("because to believe perception is far from reality would be crazy, that's never happened in the country or world"), and occupy the other side of the same coin in what is viewed as a false dichotomy which subverts any real desire for change. The "news" boards know for actual revolutionary change to occur they'd need to have many writers pen numerous articles until enough people see it and are influenced that it becomes popular opinion. And that's not going to happen. It's overridden by more counter opinions or sheer indifference. If change is going to come, it's not going to be with their aid, rather from the will of the public.
I was on glassdoor last night reading reviews of a company and the reviews sounded just the same. Reading most company reviews you'd never want to work there.
You're not supposed to get political at all here, unless it falls within acceptable viewpoints, and in spite of the issues that we're discussing inherently intertwining with the subject given during the USSF election you were referring to they were using the exact playbook as the DNC did when they cheated Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. At the time they called people crazy to suggest it. Then it was proven to be a fact, but that was after passions would have been the highest, and they further quelled them thru scapegoating and red herrings while controlling the narrative.
A small cadre of insiders would never ever promote their own interests over a broader base: to suggest the appearance of it based upon corroborating evidence (albeit without a full confession) is tin foil, duke, tin foil.
It blows my mind that it’s not considered a conflict of interest to have both Jay and Greg Berhalter in positions of so much power. Honestly, would Jay fire his brother or replace him if he found a better candidate? If the answer is no then Jay and Gregg both need to go.
Some of the stuff on monitoring employees and the hours expected seem worse-than-usual for corporate America; even a best-case interpretation of the article reveal a pretty crappy place to work.
I've already burned through my limit of NYT articles (which kind of shocks me, I don't read it that much). Anyone have a link to an article outside the context of the NYT domain?
An inherent problem with non-profit organizations is the lack of accountability. Without shareholder votes, there is no scrutiny over management. Insularity reigns. The money will come in no matter what.