A Chief Soccer Officer (CSO) for USSF.

USSF has made great sides in improving the business side of the sport, but not in the development of players and evolution in the play of the game. In fact arguably the US is falling behind other nations in recent years. USSF needs to change how it manages the game.

"What U.S. Soccer needs is a chief soccer officer (CSO) working alongside the CEO. This person will be responsible for the development of the game at all levels; youth through the structure of professional leagues; coaching through refereeing; futsal, beach soccer though Paralympic soccer. Along with a successful business model already in place the CSO should create a development plan working closely with all the stakeholders and constituents of the federation. Although identifying and appointing the correct CSO in the first 100 days might a very ambitious goal, still the process should be started."

https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...st-100-days-advice-to-the-next-us-soccer.html

I suggest that we all get behind Mr. Guvener's recommendation and push USSF to appoint a CSO. Calling for change generally is not enough. We also need constructive criticism that points USSF in the right direction.

 

Good question. The reality is that an organization structure and its actors are typically defined by an organization chart and job descriptions. There are just conventions, not strict rules.

A technical director is usually someone responsible for managing a particular knowledge area. A CEO is someone that is in charge of and responsible for the daily operations of an organization. It may be the president, but in a very large organization those duties may be separated from other responsibilities of the president and given to another individual called a CEO. All managers of segments and functions would be subordinate to the CEO.

This proposal would divide the traditional CEO position's authority between 2 co-equal positions, one for managing the sport of soccer and one for managing the organization's business. This approach would not make sense for a traditional for-profit business, where the ultimate goal is to return profit on investment. USSF, however, is a non-profit that is not only concerned with generating and spending revenues, but also responsible for managing a sport.

In short, this change is that the technical director would be subordinate to the new CSO position instead of the CEO.

USSF has an existing CEO position, but the past president still was involved in managing the daily operations of USSF. According to the new president, one change he has already made is that the new president will leave the management of daily operations to the CEO as is the conventional practice. The proposal to split the conventional CEO position into 2 co-equal positions is unconventional.

 

Exactly. All aspects of the sport would be raised in importance: officiating, coaching, and amateur play at all levels and ages, professional play, and international play. The interests of the sport should not be subservient to business interests of USSF or of the entertainment industry that is professional sports.

For instance I read that a quota system was imposed on Jurgen Klinsman's player selections which prevented him from selecting all the players he wanted. He was required to spread his picks around the MLS teams. That is an example of the sport's interests being sacrificed for business interests.