Future of Bradenton - USSF Academy

Vicerally and logically I have been agreeing with your viewpoint. I have recently changed my position. For me it comes down to a cost benefit analysis. The benefits of residential training vs other age approptiate competition. For me the financial costs and development cost outweigh the program. While every MLS team has a youth academy most aren't residential and some aren't quite up to snuff. But that's where top Non-MLS DA's come in. They provide standards based development. I also think of Bradenton as that cord that keeps us connected to a disjointed, limited, development past. To cut that cord now creates the urgency to now take action and discuss how we can now develop and fund MLS residential development academies. 19 professional Bradenton's as opposed to one amateur one. Without Bradenton and its superior limitations USSF and MLS now have to discuss post Bradenton partnership and how to use the funding, Adidas money, corporate sponsorships to ensure true professional development for thousands of 15 yr olds year round. Then start working on eliminating pay to play. We need to start building the pyramid where MLS now has some form of residential training for kids to regionally travel to, instead of just one in Florida.
USSF/MLS Integrated Youth Development 2.o. Let's start changing the culture some more.

 

Bradenton needs to be less exclusive, more flexible and targeting kids that are left behind the current MLS set up. To boil it down into a couple key points:

Kids should not be locking themselves into two year contracts with the program. If they want to leave after a semester, they should not be punished and exiled from the youth programs of the US. The program should target the best players that are not in good club situations and should not be used solely as a ticket to the U17s. This seems to slowly have been implemented, but I feel like pushing the program further in this area will help it serve its purpose and compliment the current direction of youth soccer.

 

You know how best to ensure your issues to be fixed? Close it down and let the marketplace of MLS and DA's fill the gap. It may be worse short term but much better long term. Players will dictate what they want with their choices.

 

J.R. Eskilson‏@JREskilson2h
@SoccerPurist Very high. 44 players in camp. 32 going to Residency. 6 players are saying no to Res. He was easily among the best 20 there(Devin Vega)
J.R. Eskilson‏@JREskilson2h
@SeanMonaghan_SM @soccerpurist (Going to) Europe and Mexico academies.
I think the marketplace is starting to rear its head. Wonder if MLS is listening or are tone deaf.
6 are declining residency for foreign professional academies. 6 of 32 are saying they want professional residency academies. Many aren't eligible or unable to get there. Wonder how many are turning down Residency for MLS academies.

 

I guess we're over here now. What does 3 months of Bradenton training do for a 15 yr old? What are they doing the full 10 months is much more important. If we're doing that send him to an MLS team for 3 months. Better yet let's figure out how he can get top training in place or closer to his home at a professional team.

 

In 10 years there won't be 24 MLS teams, they all won't have residential academies built and running perfectly, and we don't need a team in these areas to be able to scout them sufficiently, Perfection does not then allow you to start to think about closing a limited operation that costs 2 million a year to run. You don't wait to close a production plant until you have state of the art production in 24 other locations before you think about closing down an operation that technology and output was obsolete long ago.

 

It should be run as a business. We're in competition with the world's leagues and national teams in the production of soccer players. Simple capitalism. Benchmarking, asset allocation, cost benefit analysis, business analytics, human resources, talent acquistion, measuring productivity.
Not saying if USSF has the money just saying it may not be cost effective in the big picture.
Just because you have $2 million dollars doesn't mean you're spending it wisely.

 

Is $2 million/year for a Bradenton an educated guess? Just going off that, how could that money be dispersed in a more efficient way. 4 regional centers at 500K/year? 5 at 400K/year? Seems like fully funding the DA club spots is a good option to look at. How many could be subsidized every year for $2mil?

 

Running 4 regional centers are more expensive than 1 national one. I like what they are doing now with their regional training 'centers', not really centers. How about taking that money and either start eliminating pay for play or work with MLS and help them fund residential training academies. Just like they did to build MLS stadiums. We don't need more national USSF training we need less and have MLS start to take it over.

 

The point of capitalism is to make money and profit, not to produce athletes. Once producing athletes becomes profitable, then your argument works. Why put the burden on MLS clubs when it's not profitable due to HQ rules? Changes need to be made there first so that somebody like Arriola doesn't disappear for free. My biggest problems with Bradenton right now are the scouting and networking (related to both players and coaches getting locked into the "system") issues. I also don't think it should be the "US U-17 national team" but rather a training center for kids who don't have good club situations due to location as well as a training center prior to youth tournaments.

 

I believe the Galaxy Academy has been stated to cost 1.5 million a year to run, so I guess it's a single good MLS academy setup and change.

Thing is, an MLS academy setup has a direct route to the pros. You train hard and well enough and maybe Bruce Arena or Jason Kreis or even Ben Olsen might like you enough to sign you up, and then you might develop enough to make a bench and then it goes from there. Bradenton's alum maturation rate to pros is very good, but in the long run it probably can't compete with the direct route.

Having said that, it is indeed too early to talking about it closing for good. It could probably do with some winding down though, especially if an Orlando and/or Miami MLS team happens.

 

Shouldn't MLS make a profit? Aren't they a business? Aren't they in the business of talent acquisition? Shouldn't they develop talent for their business just like any other business? You are stating my point exactly. MLS does need to adjust rules to smooth the tracks of development. Make it easier for all teams to trial, train, recruit, sign any player they want. My problem with Bradenton is that every poster has their only one problem with Bradenton diatribe, and guess what they're all right. Too many problems to fix or change, they are obsolete. We're close for the dominoes of obstruction for MLS to really develop players to fall. We're close. It starts with the new bargaining agreement when there needs to be development roster spots separate from the 1st Team roster of 30. That begins the the step by step process of where MLS can sign pros and train amateurs to become professionals no matter what age they are. They have roster spots they have budgets they have residential intensive training, they have competition, they have integration, they then have to recruit top coaching, then the best move to Reserve teams, loans, first team.

 

No I don't think I did reinforce your point because talent production on the MLS level is not profitable yet, so you probably will not see the changes in MLS you want to see in the next CBA. My point is that there's a place for a modified Bradenton because these changes you are hoping to see aren't going to be as quick or dramatic as I think you'd like.

 

Possibly, A modified Bradenton doesn't get us on the path of true professional development.
What is profitable MLS talent production when you don't have the roster spots or budget to sign talent youth. That only happens within the CBA. You're probably right that the faucet won't open wide enough to solve alot of the problems but Bradenton's 40 players for 2 yrs doesn't solve that problem either.

 

Well if it's worth anything, my wish is that your version comes true.

 

Eliminating pay-to-play is a big one. How much does it cost to fund a roster spot?

 

I'm sure the direction IMG is taking currently plays a part in these decsions.

Im there everyday this summer and the development on campus is almost unreal. Massive football stadiums being built, more dorms etc.

They are placing more emphasis on boarding high school, then they are on their various academies.

 

Interesting question. Learned along time ago from my father the cost of anything is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. How much does a DA want for a roster spot? What do they spend on training a player? Alot of the infrastructure and gameday expense is already paid for by USSF. No idea really. Do they want to cover the cost as a loss leader or make a profit? How much of that expense can they cover themselves and not ask USSF? Do they have corporate sponsorship. Do players pay for travel? does team, does USSF?

 

For $5-7K per year, it is possible to fund a player's 10-month Academy expense in one of the expensive Metros in the country. So if Bradenton costs $2M per year, that can be translated to 300 to 400 scholarships, which will yield more than 10 times the impact of Bradenton.

 

Bradenton should have never been opened and run like it has been. Its most successful class was the abbreviated first class and it has overall done more harm than good. It made a lot early maturing kids that weren't all that good feel like they were gods gift to soccer which is why I think a lot US kids had attitude problems. In contrast, youth academies abroad used to have kids clean the first teams shoes. You could accomplish much the same thing training wise by putting them with older kids in local environments and possibly got them better coaching as well. At this point given all the options both in the US and abroad it is an even bigger white elephant. If you are worried about a kid from Mississippi or New Mexico not having a place to play teams like the Fire or Chivas USA will be happy to take you if you really any good. So will clubs like RSL, FC Dallas or any number of clubs in Europe and elsewhere.

 

This argument seems over-stated. In particular,

(1) The impact of paying the costs of kids who'd be in the DA anyway is zero*.
(2) The cost of identifying top new kids to move into the DA may be substantial.
(3) A lot of those new kids would require lodging and other expenses, which may be more economical than Bradenton but not as cheap as $5-7K per year.

Beyond that, most of the DA simply isn't a high-level developmental environment. Training schedules tend to be limited, coaches under-qualified, and it doesn't offer any real substitute for international competition.

* This is the really scary prospect, i.e., turning the Bradenton money into unproductive handouts to well-heeled youth clubs.