I was actually looking for a specific website, but this article caught my eye in the search results. It is almost worthy of the college forum, but I think it's roots are at the youth level. Thought I would share and look forward to any discussion it generates. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sports/sd-sp-us-soccer-pay-to-play-u20s-20180814-story.html
I am not a big fan of articles like this that just re-state the same "issues" that people have been pointing out for years and years without any new ideas, facts, or solutions. Two discussion points I would have: 1) For Women's soccer is there an alternative to Pay to Play? Who would fund coaches / Fields / overhead if not parents? You can lower costs by reducing some of the travel but there are still costs. and on Travel topic I think two things fuel the travel College recruiting : If / When the recruiting rules change to allow No recruiting contact direct or indirect until Junior year (rumored to be happening April 2019) will Development Academy/ECNL/USYS National league/ NPL, etc. cancel all showcases under U17? I think we all know the answer and that answer is "No". Intentionally fractured leagues/landscape: In most areas you can put together an area league that will be competitive for top teams. However in most area the top eight teams (or ten teams, or whatever) are playing in at least 3 or maybe 4 different leagues. So if your club plays ECNL you will not be able to play the other top teams that play Development Academy, or USYS National league. You now need to play teams in your league from surrounding states instead of the Development Academy team playing the National League team and the ECNL team that are 30 minutes away. 2) Assuming (in my opinion) that pay to play is not going away (Men's and Women's) how do you actually get clubs and parents to value "development" over "wins"? EVERY clubs mission statement is basically "Unlike all the other clubs in our area we focus on development of technical skills and teaching the joy of the game" This is a bunch of hogwash as 99% of the clubs focus on winning the U10 "XYZ" league and the "Premiere Superior holiday Tournament" because they believe if they do not win, parents will leave the club to go to the team that won the "Premiere Superior holiday Tournament". And what a surprise - The team that Won had that superfast kid (who is 3 inches taller than all the other player) up top and their secret developmental technique was to get the ball to that kid. Also: am I being to generous to say that 1% of clubs actually focus more on development than wins?
SpiceBoy said it better, but will pile on… Well written article…nicely lays out and articulates many of the problems with youth soccer in the US… Yet, that’s the easy part and has been well written and talked about ad nauseam…we all know the problems, we live the problems, we are the problems… It’s the solution(s) that are elusive… This articles ends rather abruptly with no real direction or indication of a solution, other than a parting shot at us “sucker” parents …which isn’t necessarily wrong, just not particularly helpful…
First, Todd Beane is awesome and is a creative thinker, people should listen when he speaks. Next, I don't see pay to play as the problem persay....coaches gotta eat...The problem is really with the Clubs/coaches mentality and their emphasis on winning over development. First I think Clubs in general are poor communicators and they do a poor job of explaining to ignorant parents (I was once one) the short and long term plan they have for the kids, and why. They don't set proper expectations. In fact they don't explain anything, rarely speak to parents(they don't want to), and this leaves parents to draw their own conclusions and learn how to be a soccer parent on their own. This leads to parents of U10 players for example being way too worried about wins and losses. Instead of the Clubs explaining to parents that this doesn't matter, and why, the Clubs placate parents and make sure the team wins one way or another. It leads to all the bad behavior from parents on the sidelines and in the car on the way home. Bottom line is if Clubs took the time to train parents early and walk them through the U9-U15 development lifecycle, most parents wouldn't be such a PITA and would actually be helpful in their child's development. I subscribe to soccerparenting.com. I think if every club subscribed to it and made the parents read the articles and watch the videos it would go a long way to getting parents onboard and changing the culture. Then you then have the gotsoccer ranking site for teams on various clubs. Clubs need to keep their rankings high not only because of the parent problem and getting new paying customers, but because teams won't get into certain tournaments unless they are ranked appropriately. Again, Clubs are forced to win. I have no solution for this, and really, as long as their are trophies and national titles for young teams, there's always going to be this measuring contest. Then from what I've seen the Clubs have no real system in place. Each coach does their own thing. If they were smart they would design a system with different goals and different methods at each age, and stick with it. The sell parents on it. Next, on my own end I have sort of implemented my own changes to see that my daughter is developing in what I see now as a better way. 1. I found the rare coach (affiliated with a large club) who is not only successful at producing top players but he is all about development and does not care about wins. He doesn't play only the best players to eek out wins. He doesn't play kick and run even though his striker has sprinters speed and is one of the best in the region at her age. He also allows and encourages the kids to play and be creative, and saves the critique for AFTER they make mistakes. Yes he still teaches them how to play the game, but he also let's them play and doesn't make them feel like garbage if they make mistakes. 2. My kid plays in other leagues outside of Club (boys and girls) where I tell her to just have fun and try things. I have come to recognize that she needs to play in situations and get touches where she is not under pressure, whether that pressure is coming from coach, other players, or from parents. 3. Parenting wise, I am positive and encourage my kid to try new things and to take chances. When she fails I tell her to keep trying. And in general when she has a bad game or makes mistakes I don't give her grief about it, I encourage her to keep trying and tell her that she'll do better next time.
The USWNT reminds me of the women's basketball team at the college I attended. Back in the 70s, 80s and 90s, their mid major basketball team was one of the best in the nation. Won many conferences and even a national championship. Eventually, the power conferences started to care about women's basketball. They recruited heavier and eventually the talent pool dried up. My school couldn't keep up anymore. Now they are lucky to even make the NCAA tournament. Same is happening in women's soccer. The USA won all the time, because the other countries put zero emphasis on women's soccer. The real soccer nations are starting to care about women's soccer now though. The clock is ticking on the USWNT's dominance.
Lack of communication is huge. "Development" is the most overused buzzword in youth soccer. It means everything and nothing at the same time. Most clubs will tell you it's their goal and almost none of them will articulate how they define it and how they intend to accomplish it. It leads to a mismatch of expectations between the parents and the coaches, with both constantly looking for greener pastures elsewhere because they find out they're not on the same page.
The article also leans heavily on the "if only they all just played pickup soccer, we'd be like Brazil" trope, rolling in basketball as an example of a successful version of that in the US. Youth basketball is a (mostly) pay-to-play travel sport with of its own brand of problems. There's also a sweeping statement in there re cost of the DAs that, if I'm not mistaken, are in the case of those run by MLS teams mostly cost-free (and I could well be wrong on that). And, as you've all pointed out, the author offers no solutions, and no answer to the question "Who pays for the fields, coaches, refs, ..., if it isn't the parents?" It would be great if we had endless places to play that cost nothing and a country full of highly qualified parents working as volunteers. We don't.
I don't have near the knowledge most of you do. I am learning fast, but I do think our club is not at the level of most others in terms of some coaching (though I have nothing to compare it to) and certainly the pay. So I appreciate the perspective you all have. I should probably be better versed with # 1 as, with the exception of my youngest who hasn't really played anything, the only soccer players I have are girls. As for # 2, I could definitely see that. Even those I know that play in higher clubs that espouse the same message, it still seems to be more results driven. They lose, but there is usually an excuse -- "the other girls are two years older and a foot taller," "we outplayed them, but....", etc etc. I don't meant to imply those things aren't true, just that even in the context of getting better, there is more than a hint of results mattering.
I think I posted a similar article months ago where it was just as you noted -- most of us can relate well to the issues, but there are no solution(s) that are really given. I find myself shaking my head -- yep yes to that too -- but in the end, I am just more left with being annoyed with this system that begrudgingly accept at least at some level and there isn't anything else really offered.
To your first point, I definitely agree. It's not that I wouldn't want kids doing more pickup soccer, I just tend to think it isn't really a solution to a problem. Or tying it to basketball overlooks, as you noted, the costs associated with that as well. Even in a day an age when there were true blacktop legends, you won't have found a lot of elite players that didn't play on multiple teams, etc. The best players all seem to be already known pretty early in HS if not earlier. I think the last draft had a lot one-and-done players taken and few of those weren't already ranked as the top prospects coming out of HS the prior year.
Thanks for the insight. Regarding your point about your kid playing in other leagues outside of club and there isn't a lot of pressure, is it not your expectation that just being a "club" player in a non-club environment can lead to additional expectations?
I did like this point in the article: Who don’t understand the honor and responsibility of representing an entire high school community instead of the just parents in lawn chairs writing the checks. Maybe more the first part. While I am happy with the club we are in and loyal to a point, it's not the same as I view their school teams. I see kids that seem to hop from club to club at a rate that certainly doesn't seem to happen at HS. Then again, you may not be getting near the same national exposure in HS as opposed to an elite club.
"More structure, more pressure, more money, more robots." I think the main point of the article is to stop supporting the industry. Stop attending the out of town out of state tournaments that mean pretty much nothing. Stop spending a buttload on extra training to get a 13 year old on the top team only to have him warm the bench. Stop paying the expensive fees for that big club an hour away when there is a local not for profit club trying to stay afloat. Allow the sport to grow by supporting an inclusive culture.
And that’s big ask for most parents and probably easier said than done…the “keeping out with the Jones” mentality, the fear of your kid(s) being left behind, along with the fear of “failing” your kid(s) is strong with most parents…I know I will cop to it…its hard, if not impossible, to place the betterment of youth soccer over the betterment of your own kids…. I see and understand absurdity and futility of the things you mention, along with many others…seen it, lived it, as many of us have…at this point, most of the veneer of youth soccer has worn thin, yet, I feel completely trapped by it… Don’t get me wrong, I am not utterly bitter, I still enjoy the watching my son play and the family time travel can involve…I just try not to think to much about the money I spend or the fact I am feeding the beast I’ve come to despise…
Additional expectations, yes, a little bit, but not as much as you would think. In my experience the most pressure comes from parents and coaches. Kids want their parents to be proud of them and they want to play well for their parents. As a parent I don't put crazy pressure on my daughter any more. In the past yes, I might have been inclined to say something like, "you're better than these non club players you need to take advantage of it/show it". These days the only thing I might say is to have fun and try new things because these games don't count. My expectations are not high and because of that her expectations aren't high. As for the coaches and pressure in non club, usually the coaches at these levels are pretty chill, but I don't allow my daughter to play for psychos at any level now. In fact it's not even about letting her, if she knows the coach is a psycho she won't play for them period.There are so many bad coaches out there...lol. But there are some that "get it", you just have to find them. The only other pressure that could come in non club environments could come from other players, but they are usually impressed with her play anyway so she is pulling her weight and really doesn't face much criticism from them.
Yeah so my daughter moved from an NPL team last year to a non NPL team this year. Why? Because we figured out that the NPL moniker doesn't mean much, especially at U13. The non NPL team she went to this year is just as good as her former NPL team and plays the same level of competition as her former NPL team. Because of this change we won't be traveling to Maryland or New Jersey for tournaments this year, but she will play high level competition locally anyway so who cares? Yes it is fun to travel occasionally and have the kids bond in overnight tournaments etc..but then driving 4 hours or doing an overnight to play a single game when you can find the same level of competition locally is ridiculous. We are lucky to be from a state/region where there are a lot of large clubs and high level teams. We can find the same level of competition to play locally and don't need to travel 100's of miles for it. The bottom line is Clubs do promote the very expensive NPL, ECNL, and DA, but these are NOT the only paths for high level players. Yes, if your kid aspires to play D1 or D2 college soccer they are more necessary, but not at U12/U13/U14. If your son or daughter is U12/13/14 and is getting great coaching, a lot of touches, and is playing against good competition, then that's all that matters. At some point if my daughter is still good enough, really wants it, and it becomes necessary, my daughter will play NPL, ECNL, or do DA. Until then we will look for the best coaches and teams to play for locally and try to keep the costs down.
And that’s great (sincerely), but you’re not really changing the system…there were dozens (if not hundreds) of kids/parents waiting and willing to slide into that NPL spot and write that check… Expecting, WE parents, to raise up and change the system isn’t going to happen, at least not any time soon…that’s all am saying….sure, a handful of parents may buck the system, in part or temporarily, but no high level player* can do it for long or indefinitely… There is no realistic path to any college without feeding the beast at some point… * A bit subjective, it can mean anything from varsity HS all the way to the Pros…vmmv
All of our experiences aren’t the same so I’m not saying this applies universally..in my experience, across several clubs, both genders, multiple states, from B teams to MLS DA...we never lost a player due to cost. If a player already on the team could not afford it, the club and the rest of the families paid. If somebody saw a good player in a HS game or lower level game they were invited to tryouts. If they expressed concern with travel or cost the club and team assisted. This issue get mixed up between general participation and high level travel. The same clubs I’m referring to still had rec teams for HS age kids down to 3 year olds. They could play decent soccer with other kids who didn’t want to take the time for serious travel or didn’t want to pay for it. But, if there was a player who could help the top team, they were offered the chance to join and money would not be the issue. That may not be typical where you live but as we moved around and joined other clubs I don’t recall seeing or hearing anything different. Sure, if somebody wanted to play travel but wasn’t good enough or committed enough the club would refer them to the rec league...they could play and pay something like $50...which also could be waived. So, it is my current experience that we aren’t losing out on Mbappe, Salah or Silva because they are playing rec league and can’t afford travel...a truly talented player may not be able to play for $0, but the family can get assistance. They also can be asked to volunteer at the club in exchange for assistance.
The article's example about basketball (that it's a "free for all", just pick up games, let players develop their skill, no coaches, tournaments, etc) is so full of crap, I need hip waders. Are kids meeting at a local park and playing pickup games? Sure. But there are also kids meeting at a soccer field and doing pickup games. When DS was 7(?), he was on a "travel basketball team". Sure, the coach was a parent and had some knowledge of the game. But we had to pay for uniforms, gym rental, and tournaments. The only thing that had over soccer is the tournaments were generally local. But think about the size needed. One basketball facility we went to had five courts in the space only slightly larger than a soccer field. Soccer tournaments require lots of space, and that kind of space isn't available everywhere. A basketball court is generally going to be the same quality wherever you go (I'm talking specifically of the court, not the stands, concessions, etc). Soccer fields not so much. The upkeep for soccer fields cost $$. I've mentioned before DS' club team has to go at least an hour (if not 2-3) to find a club that will give them a challenge. So sure, we could stay within that hour or two, play every team, and win by 4-5 (if not more) against 7/10 other teams. Is that good for either team? THAT'S why teams join regional leagues, or go to weekend tournaments. "Pay to play" has been discussed here a number of times. All everyone says is "it's hurting development" and "we're missing out on quality players because they can't afford it". But no one explains how they think things should be run to eliminate P2P. As PP said, do you expect people to just donate land & upkeep for the fields and coaches should all be volunteers?
I doubt it's tracked (or at least published) but I'd love to know how many players on the top teams at ECNL/DA clubs started with the club before, say, U11 and how many migrated over at some point afterwards.
Yeah, but that charity only works because of other parents are paying the freight…for every 1 kid who gets a free ride, 99 kids are paying full price… More importantly, I would strongly suggest the situation you describe only works because it’s so rare…sure, clubs will make arrangements for a few kids that can help the club/team win in the now…because, let be honest, these clubs are not make this arrangements for average kids or those who simply have potential... In my experience, these kids that get this arrangements are plug and play “ringers” for the lack of better term… I don’t necessarily have an issue with any of that, I just don’t think the situation you descried is proof or a counter to the idea that pay to play doesn’t push out or discourage potentially talented kids, long before that talent is identified and/or developed…
My post included the availability of less intense opportunities for those who want to play at a lower cost. I’m assuming potentially talented players have the desire to play and compete such that they get exposure to the inexpensive options at young ages. I don’t think there is any solution in which every player falls into their optimal situation...in general, the game is accessible to a wide range of the population from age 3-18 and a smaller percentage have access to more focused pursuits. I raised the point regarding the frequent conflating of rec and travel...if we are talking about the ultimate output being a more successful NT program then it will be very much about finding ringers and matriculating them through the funnel. That is completely separate from general participation and access. The current process needs work, always will...but I don’t get the impression we have 21 WC players walking around who are saying “I love the sport, want to play, I am uniquely talented, I’ve tried to make myself available via school and club and am willing to make the sacrifice but because we would have had to pay to play soccer I am currently not playing.” I don’t think that happens as often as people suggest but clearly agree more could be done to promote economic inclusivity and retention. Edit: yes I agree that many clubs charge a club fee over and above the total cost of that one player and the club fee includes funding for families who need assistance. On top of that I’ve seen teams provide surplus uniforms, rides, hotel rooms and food. It wasn’t just about winning, I saw families providing help because it was the right thing and the players were friends.
Totally agree with Terrier. What should be happening (IMO) is club coaches should occasionally be watching some of the rec games their organization puts on. It's not that hard to see who the "standouts" are at pretty much any level. Then you talk to their parents about club soccer. Maybe they're not interested. But maybe they are and they just don't know about it. If they balk at the money, you bring up the scholarship aspect. As kids play club soccer (even at a small club), if they're good enough, they'll stand out to the bigger clubs and should get invitations from them. Rinse & repeat. Again, saying "P2P is bad and should be done away with" but not giving any kind of practical alternative (saying "look at Germany/Brazil/Spain" is not an answer) doesn't help anyone.
I feel that playing "pickup"games" is an important part of development. Although my child is involved in a well established club that consistently has kids go on to play at all levels of college a lot of his skills were honed in the free play environment of the local soccer scene. This involve playing with immigrant children (cant afford the pay to play), no/minimal coaching, no consequences for trying new things, play different positions than club. Looking at some of the kids in this league and you realize the pay to play is excluding many players......
Some random thoughts: Our soccer culture vs our basketball/football/baseball culture - The majority of parents (dads for the most part) can teach their kid how to shoot a layup, dribble a basketball, throw a spiral, catch a football, hit a baseball, catch a pop fly. The percentage of parents that can show their kid how to juggle a soccer ball more than 3 times, properly strike a ball, execute a scissors, step over or cruyff turn is very, very low. These soccer skills are innate in countries that have a deep soccer culture. You don't need a coach to spend weeks teaching a 10 year old how to do a scissors in practice and hope that he actually tries it in a game at least once. Pay to play - Tournaments and the college landscape There are so many tournaments these days. Very little "development" happens when you are playing 3-5 games over the course of 30 hours. The winner is usually the team that is sandbagging and playing in a lower bracket or has the biggest roster and has enough subs to last the weekend. But clubs line up to play these games. At a cost of $600-$1,500 per tournament. Soccer has become a year round sport - But the only "real" season is usually in Fall. The winter (in warm weather states), Spring and Summer season are taken up by tournaments. I guess DA has changed that a bit by having a 10-month season. But for the rest of the teams they are running around playing in tournaments. And some are playing a seasons worth (10 games) over the course of 2 weekends. It's not healthy for young bodies and it's not good for development. What is actually being "taught" between a 9 am game on Saturday morning and the next game at 2pm? The "carrot" for many parents and players seems to be getting a college scholarship. So we have created leagues, tiers and tournaments (showcase anyone?) that are meant to cater to college scouts. Why are youth clubs trying to make life easier for college coaches to scout players? Seems that colleges have had scholarship money for soccer players for a lot longer than ECNL, DA, NPL, etc have been around. How did they find players back then? What is the annual budget for a college soccer program to hit the recruiting trail? We had a showcase in So Cal recently that touted "free sushi, open bar and cigars" for coaches attending. I'm guessing these amenities weren't donated out of the goodness of someone's heart. They likely came from the $1,400 entry fee per team and the $12 parking cost per car. With the ease of video recording and social media- The college scouting process should be much more streamlined these days. Here's what I would do to change things around: Each of the major college conferences should host their own tournament twice a year. Make it last a week. Play 5 games over the course of 7 days. House the players in your dorm rooms for free. Feed them for free. Do it twice a year so that all clubs within the conference geography have a chance to attend (IE - The Pac 12 - Host one in So Cal or Arizona and another in Oregon or Washington) Make college coaches pay a fee to attend. Get Nike, Adidas, Puma, Reebok, PapaJohns, McDonalds, Gatorade, Citibank, Ford, Chevy, etc to sponsor to help cover overhead costs. Every game is recorded and given to each player for them to use as the please for highlight reel purposes.