Or combination of strategies. To me status quo would be a continuation what we've seen the last couple of years. MLS tinkers with roster rules to keep teams investing in Academies. More and more teams set up USL teams. Pyramid (at least the top) continues to stabilize. USSF continues to make more money and increases scholarships. Am I wrong to want more? Should I just be happy if I get the above? I had hoped that the whole Training Compensation / Solidarity Payments development might help transfer more wealth downward, but Mr. Loney has convinced me that that likely won't give me the results I want. Any other realistic* ideas? *screaming PRO/REL while stomping your foot isn't a realistic strategy.
Yes And yes. This is why it's so very, very helpful to have a basic grasp of history and (sports)culture as well as some sense of perspective when considering these issues. The reality is, that while we are light-years, truthfully light-years ahead of where we were as a soccer nation ten years ago(to say nothing of twenty), we are not yet at the point where we can realistically 'want more'. Study your American club soccer history, especially from the founding and demise of the NASL to the present. It should enlighten you.
According to Don Garber last year MLS clubs spent more money on USL clubs and Academies than was spent on professional salaries 5 years prior. That seems like a paradigm shift. Was it a one time thing, or should we expect this trend to continue. What does the American development chain look like when there are 28 Academies and 50+ lower league but still professional clubs in the country? How does the NCAA respond?
Does the NCAA have to respond? Baseball players can choose to enter the MLB Draft after high school or go to college. NCAA schools compete against each other to recruit, but does the NCAA do anything to convince athletes to play in the NCAA as opposed to minor league baseball or professionally in another country (with professional opportunities at around age 18 depending on the athlete and sport)? I don't want this to become a debate about whether the NCAA should let athletes be paid, but if the NCAA wanted better quality athletes overall then paying players would be one way to do that.
Here's what it is going to take: time. The United States still has a dearth of quality coaching at all levels. Yes, dumping money into coaching education would help, but more likely it is going to happen when kids of today that are actually being well coached become coaches themselves. You can get a guy who played and coaches kick and run soccer all the education possible, but that doesn't mean he will be able to implement changes since he never actually played in a more modern system. With every year that passes, more qualified coaches enter coaching and, hopefully, push out those who are unqualified. Then increasing the coaching education of these young coaches would make a big difference. The United States also has a culture problem. In many countries, soccer is life. Not so here except in small pockets. There are relatively few parents capable of teaching kids skills from the earliest ages, few spontaneous pickup games, and not much dedication to honing skills after practice is over. Building scads of futsal courts -- the cure-all according to some -- would certainly help now, but it is probably too soon in many areas. Again, with every year this improves. Kids of today are growing up with things many of us never had, such as a huge presence on television, a stable American league, and acceptance from most of the country. That builds a soccer culture. Soccer development will always be difficult here because of the entrenched, multiple sports opportunities, the diffuse population, and the upside-down USSF pyramid, but time will see improvements.
I don't see where the NCAA is going to factor into this. The NCAA is already being bypassed by the majority of the top prospects, and there is little they can do to compete with getting paid to play a sport they love AND develop. NCAA soccer programs are lobbying to extend the season into the spring to improve development and -- in reality -- make it more palatable for good soccer prospects, but such a move would have such far-reaching impacts within athletic departments that it is unlikely it will happen. NCAA programs will continue to pump out MLS roster filler and a few quality players, but not the difference-maker talents that would lead the US to greater status on the word stage.
Colleges will continue to have soccer teams like they have other sports. They think it adds value to their institutions and students. Football, basketball, baseball, and other sports are played way down into the lower levels of colleges mostly for the sake of having teams. The vast majority of those have nothing to do with developing players for pro careers. Division III college football is a good example. There are 238 teams at that level. They average about 1 player per year getting drafted into the NFL out of all those teams. That is obviously not why they exist. Why would soccer be different?