I came across this article the other day regarding a coach making a case for pay to play. I was curious about your thoughts on it. http://goalnation.com/the-pay-to-play-model-a-coachs-perspective/ Part of me gets it. I understand there is a cost associated with it and you get what you pay for. Another part of me feels much of his discussion is around what he sees are talented players. Financial aid or the team banding together to help a family in need is great, but he also specifically talks about talented players meeting some additional criteria that he has seen this happen for. As a first timer on a club that is massively scaled down cost wise from other area clubs, I may not have the same experiences. Not sure we would be able to afford those other clubs even if she made the teams. (I am not clear how many girls tend to or how many teams they attempt to field). I guess if that is what we wanted then you start with tryouts and figure out the finances I'd you make it. Anyways, my thoughts seemed more clear before, but hopefully you get my intent. I am curious of your thoughts.
Pay for play will survive until training and solidarity fees are finally allowed in the US and the pyramid is opened up.
For me, part of the issue is that we have two very different missions co-existing in the same space--is club soccer for elite player development, or is a broad-based youth sports endeavor? Too often, it seems to me, it tries to do both at the same time.
I think that is a good question. Be curious to hear more on that. I prefer the broad based endeavor and maybe there is a more elite top level?
I do as well--fully recognizing that "How do we accomplish that?" is a very good question and I don't pretend to know the answer(s).
I believe you had mentioned in another thread about the affect of kids playing longer on the future of the game (more coaches, more love of the sport). I know, myself included, plenty of people that only just got into the game in their 30s or 40s, some becoming coaches. It's great, but imagine if you get that started even earlier and someone with some real knowledge of the game!
The article lost me right off the bat (I did read it)….but once I read, any and all points within this article relate back to the most talented group of players, I pretty much didn’t care what it had to say…this over emphasis on the top 0.0001% is the our biggest problem…this mindset permeates and effects the “system” even where it has no business doing so…everything/everyone that isn’t seen as the “best” is underdeveloped and underappreciated, if not disparaged outright…
And beyond. We're actually seeing more pay-to-play in England these days. It's just waaaaaay cheaper.
I will admit I did not read the article and am basing this off of mwulf's comment. The problem is who is defining the "most talented group of players"? I don't mean are the evaluators identifying who is talented but rather in what context are they talented? My point is does this relate to the top 15 players in each club, town, city, county, state, region, etc.? Top 15 players in each of these locales is different but there is no way to know where they fall on the spectrum of the other locales much less nationally and beyond. The players (and more likely the parents) in each of these scenarios expect to be treated and trained differently than their peers but what does that look like? How does player 10 in Pella, Iowa compare to number 10 in Houston and should they be treated the same? For some reason in more "American" team sports the local development process works and then things tend to sort themselves out at the next level (NCAA) but in soccer that has not worked, the question is why? How can a basketball player from Pella Iowa end up at a Big East school for 4 years and then continue with a 15 year NBA career? Did that player get more than the others in terms of development in his small town than everybody else or did he do more with what he was given than everybody else?
I had a mixed reaction to the article. My main belief is like the author states "I believe the Pay to Play model is beginning to become the scapegoat". To me the pay to play is a part of the problem, however culture comes first. I do believe we are missing some players that cannot afford the price of Club soccer however between low cost clubs and scholarships if a top player wanted to play soccer badly enough they could do so in today's environment. I also think an average player can find low cost clubs but are probably less likely to get financial aid from expensive clubs. The reason I say culture is a bigger issue is because how many Low-Income dedicated athletes want to play soccer bad enough to figure out the best low cost options? There is no doubt that there are some low income children being left out but I think the recent "Pay to Play is ruining everything" rants are ignoring that we do not know how large a number of children are actually being left out vs. how many are not interested in soccer enough to figure out a low cost option. Is it worth the effort? They are not thinking "I may be next Donovan, Dempsy, McBride, etc." because they do not even know who Donovan, Dempsy, and McBride are... And to clarify, I am not saying Pay to Play is not a problem. It is A problem, however I think other problems are even bigger . (US Soccer Culture and youth coaching at the youngest age groups are my number #1 and #2)
Quoting from the article: In addition to the scholarship, the team itself always comes together to help and support the player whose family is not so fortunate financially as others. ---- He then goes on to say he can't imagine there's a player in SoCal that wouldn't be allowed the opportunity blah blah blah... What if, instead of 1 talented kid needing scholarship help, you had 40 kids that were all better than your ElitePremierSelect A team and none of them could afford the club fees? Suddenly his model of the other families pulling together crumbles. Or it soon falls apart once the families paying for the B/C/D teams are paying for the A team. FIFA has setup mechanisms to reward clubs for developing players; USSF chooses to ignore it. Pay to play exists around the world - town teams, rec clubs, etc. Nobody is paying a college tuition sized amount under the guise of having a chance at getting a partial college tuition/pro career anywhere else.
Excellent points. I think I missed that, but he mentions "talent" enough that it's clearly the focus.
Good points. Or we hear from Pulisic that you need to go to Europe if you can (and wouldn't that just be our 000001% that mwulf67 mentioned? Why can't it be done here?
That stuck out to me as well and I like your what if scenario. Have they ever considered what they might be missing out on? Surely there are some amazing players where soccer wasn't even a consideration. It wouldn't have been for us -- they did micro at a young age. My oldest two stopped after that league. Our next in line wasn't going to play, but they needed a player (it was like kindergarten or 1st grade). She got on the team with her friends and they were awesome for several years. All rec league stuff. We had her try out for a club team, which she made and has been enjoying that journey. If this club wasn't 1/5th the price of some of the others, we wouldn't have even considered it. Even now, one of her friends plays for one of the more elite clubs with the higher costs. Her dad really promotes it well, but even mentioning something like tryouts in theory, you can see my wife going through our ledger in her head and shaking it as if to say, we can't do that.
Well, Pulisic went as a professional player. A pretty damn elite one. He's not talking about most youth players, not even most really good ones. If I'm reading you correctly, that is.
I probably did apply it too high level. It was just one of those things that bugged me. I don't have any issues with Pulisic, just that a lot of those things are easier said than done. Like with what you and others have mentioned -- is the goal for elite player development or something more broad based.
Can underprivileged kids participate in youth soccer? I think yes. Is "pay to play" bad? I think no. He spent the first half of the article saying why pay to play is a necessity and no one has challenged his facts... it costs money to train and play. Coach's time. Field rental. League fees. Referee fees. Tournament Fees. Equipment (although a small part, pennies and cones at minimum). On a lot of these items, you get what you pay for. So, let's say an edict comes down from above and abolishes pay to play. So where does the money come from to pay coaches? Or are they supposed to volunteer? Where do you practice? Who do you play? Who referees? Now, yes, you can get a bunch of kids to go to a nearby park, hope the field isn't being used and get some parent to "coach". Does that help development? I've also heard the argument that if a player makes a professional team that team "pays" the player's club team for the development of the player. But what club gets the money? As much as people move around (whether trying to find a "better club" or just moving because the parents had to relocate), it's very possible a player may have played for multiple clubs, all of whom contributed to his/her development. So who gets that money? I agree with the author that "pay to play" is being used as a scapegoat. If the issue is finding the future talent for the NT, I think the issue is a lack of scouts/time. In theory the ODP program was supposed to help that (or so I thought). But now you've got kids skipping ODP because of their DA/ECNL clubs. So now the scouts need to watch ODP as well as DA/ECNL.
Thanks for replying. You have a differing opinion than some of my and other's responses, but I think you are right that nobody is arguing that things cost money. I do think if the current system went away, it would be because there was some other subsidy for some of the costs. A few questions and not necessarily aimed at you, but maybe you have thoughts on it -- 1) Where does most of the cost for the typical club go to? Are there things that can be cut back on without losing much? 2) If more kids played, would it be cheaper for everyone? I think football is a far more expensive sport in terms of the costs associated with just playing a game, but we have spent less or comparable on that (arguably getting more in some cases) than say rec and certainly our club experiences. It just feels to me that if clubs allowed more kids it would just raise the costs for more coaches or whatever. In that respect clubs want money from the most talented they can identify rather than just wanting money (which the author does say clubs don't want money...they want your money). 3) How do you see the underprivileged gaining access? This doesn't seem to be an issue for most of the other major sports. Hockey might be an equivalent, but I would assume the facility maintenance and equipment needed far outweighs any soccer costs? It seems theoretically soccer is far cheaper to play than the other sports, but that the underprivileged here have cheaper alternatives for those sports.
Solidarity payments are already figured out by FIFA. See here for a primer http://www.fai.ie/domestic/governance/fifa-solidarity-and-compensation-payments https://www.lawinsport.com/articles...pensation-and-solidarity-payments-in-football
I agree with all this. I don't think pay-to-play in and of itself is the problem. It's the secondary consequences--the unhelpful focus on results rather than player development, the premature narrowing of the playing pool, etc. Pay-to-play doesn't create those problems--they're more a manifestation of our underdeveloped soccer culture--but it does exacerbate them. That's my take anyway. I don't think the answer is to eliminate pay-to-play as that pretty much just yanks resources out of youth soccer without fixing the underlying issues.
Let me apologize up front, the follow is a little ranting and has a few cross thoughts from a few active threads… The idea that Nobody from small town Nowhere playing for Club Never Heard Of, or worse, Loser High School, might actually become a decent soccer player is unheard of, even laughable in youth soccer… Yet, those stories play out all the time in other more Americanized team sports… And why is that? I am sure there are lots of reasons we can point to…the best, or perhaps the worst, is that soccer is somehow “special”…. But think the bottom line is those other sports are ingrained in and embraced by our culture in ways that soccer is still struggles to achieve…despite the TV ratings, attendance stats, the participation numbers or even the fact we as a nation wrap ourselves in the flag to cheer on Team USA every 4 years…not this time around of course…soccer is still very much a niche sport… And as a niche sport, the powers that be, supported by self-serving experts, are all about promoting and micro managing an anointed “path” to college and beyond…and any deviation from said path, even before you hit puberty, and you are pretty much written off…stay too long in rec, done….play High School, done….play college, done….have to bad luck not to live in a DA market, super done… As I said earlier, it’s a mindset the permeates the whole system…from the moment a kid starts kicking a ball is all about being on the “right” team, on the “right” club, with the “right” coach, playing in the “right” leagues and going to the “right” tournaments…and if you’re not, you’re doing it wrong… No national organization is going to fix this problem…we are not a tweak here or a tweak there from fixing anything… To me it all comes down to this….do countries like Spain and Germany love soccer because they are good at it or are they good at soccer because they love soccer? I clearly think it’s the latter…and until we find or get that love, not much is going to change… On a side note, We just came off the HS football championship games here in Illinois over Thanksgiving…nobody in the Gridiron community would disparaged Class A champ Winslow High School for their win….a small town team, with limited talent and resources…However, similar situations in youth soccer are routinely trashed as a money grabs, worthless, pointless, confusing, deceiving, painting a false reality, etc…
P2P can't happen overnight. It will be gradually disappear once solidarity payments happen. The best clubs will sell their players and will be able to use these payments to offset costs. It will also weed out a lot of the middle tier clubs. and this will work for the boys better than the girls.