I had a long chat with a long time friend about the state of US soccer and we kind of fell upon something that is the inherent problem with soccer and hockey.. they suffer from the same problem. Soccer (and hockey) is largely middle-class and up, suburban sport in this country. Parents in this socioeconomic range very rarely push their kids to become professional athletes, they stress education... better to have a 90% chance of making $80k a year than .01% chance of making $2 mil a year. Poor kids (families) are much more likely to view athletics as a way out so therefore they invest much more time and energy into athletics. Soccer (and hockey) don't exist in poor communities. Soccer has a 2 fold problem here; first kids that are likely to invest themselves into becoming athletes are not introduced to the sport and second, they do not see soccer as a sport they can make millions at. They see Lebron, Brady, ARod, etc on TV and see the millions they make. They don't really see MLS players on TV and they almost never see European based players on TV. Even if they did to many poor kids playing in Europe is a unreachable to them as playing on Mars. No matter how much scouting, training and coaching improves middle-class Americans are never (in great numbers) going to let their kids dedicate the time to a sport to become really great. As a father of 20+ year old sons I can tell you for a fact that every parent I came across during their sport playing years viewed athletics as a teaching tool and their focus was mainly education.
Unlike other countries, the US and Canada have this culture of playing for your school or rather going to school because of athletics. I'm sure its the same everywhere coast to coast. If you give a high school player a tour of most North American college campuses, whether they are offered scholarships or not, they would be idiots to pass it up. The facilities are top class. Probably better than many first division clubs around the world. The weight rooms, swimming pools, and fields are all top notch. As a parent of a student athlete, I would never have my kid pass up a chance to get a degree with a slight hope that maybe they may get signed by a professional club. I hope there comes a time when the NCAA let's college players train with the pros because there is no reason on why they shouldn't be able to. They are already competing and playing with and against other professional players in youth , Olympic and other types of tournaments. In some cases, these players make millions of dollars so there is no reason why the amateurs shouldn't at least train or be able to compete with and against other professional players and clubs. This could ensure or at least speed up development on some levels for players ages 18-22.
Disagree on international star exposure. There's zero difficulty seeing the big names. Internet and TV is pretty good now. Anecdote: I dislocated my thumb this summer. Sitting in the urgent care in Baltimore city, a random American kid who loved football and basketball knew who cr7 and Messi were because of YouTube. I think exposure is fine. Soccer is definitely elitist in the U.S. though. There were a handful of Freddy Adu level players in my region when I was playing. A couple are lawyers now and one's in residency. Who knows how it pans out if they're fully focused on soccer.
They probably made the right choice if they were Freddy Adu level players. Sidenote, him and Taribo West just had a joint 50 birthday bash.
Exactly what its says. Club level of fitness is a lot different than national team and always has been. National team players compete in young men's tournaments and they always have. You can get away with starting 4/5 players players over the age of 30 on a club but you can't do that at a WC level. Maybe 1 or 2 players or a defender or a GK here and there but that's about it. If you aren't in top shape on a national team, someone else is always ready to step in your spot. That isn't as easy on the club level though. I mean unless you are a top team which are few and far between.
falvo the problem is that college is great in preparing you for the pros if you are playing football or basketball. In hockey and soccer it's not because the best players (18-22) are not playing in college they are playing in junior leagues (hockey) or in academies. In the revenue generating sports football and basketball the facilities and training you get are as good as you say. In other sports you don't get to use the same facilities those athletes do. In football and basketball you have top coaches, top trainers and top doctors.. in essence you are getting the same training as professional athletes... it's entirely different in non-revenue generating sports. Also, while the college kid is spending 20 hrs a week on his sport and other kids his age are playing against grown men in real games spending 40-60 hrs a week on their game and training. Also college can take your "hunger" away. I'm a big Notre Dame fan and about 6-7 years ago I was listening to a podcast and the guest was a former ND football player. He talked about how ND "breeds" out the hunger to achieve athletically. What he said that when he arrived at ND as a poor kid his only thought was to play in the NFL. As he went along he realized there was a whole world out there that offered him the opportunity to make a good living and he could do so without the NFL. Unconsciously he began to focus his energies on school and the hunger he had to go to the NFL was not nearly as strong as when he arrived.
Sure but would you want your kid to pass up a chance to go to college, at a school like Stanford, UCLA, Maryland, Notre Dame any Ivy league school , on a free ride for a lousy $55k a year MLS contract? I wouldn't ever do that. Not even for $100k especially if he had a scholarship. Most parents feel the same way.
That's because you love soccer and follow it passionately. If your entire sports reference is ESPN the only soccer players you know are Messi and Ronaldo. I have a signed Totti jersey in my bonus room and when my son was young our house was the hang-out house.. not a single one of his friends heard of Totti.
Younger players are more in shape. They are faster, get less injured and are always more in form that players over the age of 30. That has been going on for as long as I remember. How many players over the age of 30 normally start during a WC or Euro finals? Very few that I can think of.
oh I misunderstood. Hell no take the scholarship and go make a $100k after you get out. Honestly, I don't think I'd let my son go to one of the European club academies either. Sure we all know the success stories but what about the larger percentage of kids who are washing dishes now that didn't make it.
Yeah they are few and far between. I'd say one in a million. Being an American, its even more difficult to make it in Europe just because of their nationality. .
heck, even if you look at just Italian kids that go to Italian club academies the chances of making it are small. Then what do you have? No education, no skills no prospects.
Yeah maybe 1, 2 or 3 players but as a rule, very few players are age 32 when starting in a Euro or WC but they are mostly young men's tournaments. The initial point was , I doubt many of the same US players who lost the other night will be there in 5 years time. I hope they won't be because they really aren't that good to begin with.
Yeah some of my cousins were in Lazio's academies and their parents wanted them to finish school. On the other hand, sometimes parents ruin it too and you have some players who are pushed too much. Another friend of mine had a dad playing for Napoli and Vicenza. He had made lot of money as a player in the Serie A and then started his own construction company. He wanted his son to follow in his footsteps and he talked to many coaches across the Serie A, B and C to help get his son signed. They all told him that it wasn't in the cards because he wasn't good enough. Luckily, they had there own company and he did well but he would have never made it as a pro in a top league.
Nobody's frame of reference is solely ESPN. Internet video killed the ESPN's of the world. ESPN would be dead without gyms having it on as white noise. Kids live on YouTube, and that's where you'll find all of the CR7, Messi, etc. highlights you can handle.
This is more of an issue than whether players come from suburban or urban settings. Football and basketball have high schools and colleges that pave a way for players. Only a small percentage make it to the pros but the investment is based more on personal instead of financial to get through. Even for kids that play ball in private high schools, the top athletes will get grants to attend the schools. We are a country that stresses education. Now not all college soccer players give a shit about that but a good many do as there is a long term benefit. MLS loses some of their best prospects to college. They retain rights to the player after their education is complete but it is like sending a young player to a bad loan. There is nothing to prevent a player from pursuing a college degree while playing MLS. The league should look at that as part of the compensation package. The other thing that should be looked at is the baseball model. There is a lot of talk about promotion & relegation. It is not going to work in a country of this size. It hardly works in Europe. There are minor league towns who do well with soccer in the lower leagues. They are not ever going to make it big. Use the baseball model to make better use of player development.
I would bet very few if any college soccer players are thinking pro. They may give MLS a shot once they get out but again, this scenario is going to produce the same type of players we have now. If you have a 15 year old kid who shows great promise and a few academies come calling he has 2 choices. Go to Europe and give it a shot or stay in the US and get a college scholarship. Given that the vast majority of soccer players here in the US are middle-class and up their parents are almost always going to choose option 2.. scholarship. The only way we start producing more players like Pulisic is if parents opt for option one, send your kid to Europe. I just don't see enough American parents opting for that route. As a parent I know I would never have allowed my son to go off to Europe on a wild gamble that he may become a professional.
To tie this all back to Roma... Apparently some 9 year old phenom by the name of Alessandro Cupini is moving from KC to Rome next summer to join the Roma academy. Apparently he's been to the Empoli, Atalanta and Roma academies already but his family is making the move to Rome so he can be there full time. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...-of-top-academies-in-the-world-300529813.html
But for those players that MLS are developing or find, if there was an option for them to go pro and get their education, it could improve the situation. There is no reason for a top player to have to play college ball. He can pursue his education while playing for an MLS team.
Oh yea, I agree with this. One thing I think the USSL should do is offer "future" scholarships. Find 20-30 (or whatever number makes sense given the money constraints) of the best players every year and offer them a full ride to college if they go to an academy and it doesn't work out. They have to do this with young players not 17-18 year old its too late then.
Well, they dominated 14 year olds while looking like 14 year olds. Freddy dominated 14 year olds while having the muscle tone of a 25 year old.