My issue is not necessary having a mandated or outlined curriculum or training/licensing anyone and everyone, it is more your implication, quite frankly your bashing, of other sports for not having such curriculums and not really needing, nor requiring, licensing…I believe you said it was a “huge disadvantage” on the part of those sports…that’s what I take issue with; I see no huge disadvantage and quite frankly, soccer would be lucky to have those same “disadvantages” as you call them… I know have we BOTH been a bit all over the place since then, but that is really, and only, where my disagreement lies... As I’ve said before and will say again now, I’ve never claimed to a self-appointed expect on Youth Soccer, I am just a soccer parent muddling my way thought as best I can…
I've never once bashed any other sport for not having (or requiring) licensing. It is a huge disadvantage. Do you know how many millions of kids are lost without learning/knowing proper skills to play a sport? I don't care what sport it is. If there's no curriculum, how can anyone properly teach? If there's no strategic development pathway, for skill OR the sport, how can we grow? Would anyone trust American Heart Association if it didn't have a strategy to teach heart health? Would anyone give to Wounded Warriors if they didn't have a plan in place to help wounded veterans? That's a no to both, or at least they wouldn't be as sustainable as they've been. This has nothing to do with the Messi's, Ronaldo's, LeBron's, Kobe's, etc. They are elite, not everyone is on their level. This has everything to do with addressing the concerns of how/why kids leave sports -- either on their own OR because they are cut (obviously, most likely cut because they don't know how to play the sport). It has everything to do with discovering and helping kids reach a level they desire to reach. The NBA and MLB are both near 30% international. Are those internationals better than domestic players, quite possibly or they wouldn't be there, right? That means the increase in international is partly due to domestic players not being at the level they need to be. I have no idea where you are from or how active you are in youth sports. But, it doesn't take much to go watch any sport to see how critically underserved many areas are because there is no education with youth sports development. No matter the sport.
See, this is where I think we are talking pass either other…the lack of curriculum may disadvantage some kids, but it is not, in the case football, baseball, basketball, disadvantaging those sports overall…those sports have grown, are growing or are at least maintaining just fine without an official strategic development pathway…you are trying to make the case they are not, which I clearly disagree with… Once again, “many areas” do not equate to the whole…I am sure there are lots of areas that are underserved by various sports, and I would certainly agree soccer probably leads the way in many of those areas… But, and this is a big but, that doesn’t mean the overall sport is unhealthy or isn’t doing a decent job of developing talent and spend them off to the highest levels….clearly soccer in this country can’t say that…hence, all the hand wringing on how to fix it; I get that… Yes, as with many things, the world is becoming a smaller place….MLB at 29% foreign players and the NBA at 30% is certainly an example of that…just not sure it’s an example of a failure to develop domestic talent on our part… I won’t throw out the EPL, since it’s too easy to bash English Soccer, but nobody thinks Germany doesn’t or can’t produce world class soccer talent….YET, the Bundesliga is just over 50% foreign players…
I think one thing that is getting missed is that in most sports, at the youth level, things are localized/regionalized. To look at a few sports I follow pretty closely it becomes apparent that there areas that have different sporting strengths most likely because of the efforts/interests of a local area. Wrestling is dominated in primarily rural states. Iowa, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Minnesota are dominate; more urban areas not so much. Diving has had tremendous success in Indiana. Look at any of our national teams and the team will be dominated by Indiana natives. This is a cold weather state you would not expect to be a force in an aquatic sport but it is largely because the national body is based there and the communities have invested in the facilities. Water polo is dominated by California, always has been. American football is dominated by the South. Indiana (a common thread?) has had more than their expected success in basketball. Hockey is dominated in the North (weather probably). Some of these make logical sense but beyond inherent advantages there is also a culture that has bought into the sport. I don't think soccer really has that buy in anywhere. Granted there are some immigrant communities that have local buy in but not to the state or regional level of most other sports. The question is how do we develop that culture on a more widespread basis as other sports have done?
I'm not sure why you throw out figures that aren't accurate? From 2008-2016: Football (down 388,000) Baseball (down 806,000) Basketball (down 666,000) None of those figures are "grown, are growing, or at least maintaining." None of those numbers are positive for any sport. Soccer is in the same situation. So, if numbers are dwindling, couldn't something that helps them swing upward be a positive development experience? If numbers trend downward, that also means that there are fewer players in the "player pool." If the player pool is dropping, that means more development needs to take place to provide for those lower numbers. It has nothing to do with playing a specific formation and developing tactics for everyone that is domestically universal. It's providing a framework on where kids should be at certain levels -- with possibilities of moving faster and/or needing to catch-up. If there less underserved areas with sport, then we would not see participation numbers declining. I firmly believe that. There are many reasons for the decreasing participation, but there's no doubt about it that kids that know how to play and can play ENJOY the sport more and are more likely to stick with the sport. If we want to see soccer trend upward, then we should do what we can to ensure that kids can learn and enjoy, so they could potentially stay with the sport. If no other sport is truly focusing on it from a governing body, soccer CAN because USSF exists (as well as USYSA, United Soccer Coaches, etc.). The difference in German soccer: their lower leagues are predominately German, by large numbers -- 2 Bundesliga 28%, 3 Liga 16%, Regional 15-20%. Germany also has 30,000 teams in its 2100+ divisions, compared to the 56 teams and 2 divisions in USSF. What is important to differentiate from MLB, NBA, and NFL (that you haven't done) is that they are more concerned with growing their brands worldwide, thus trying to increase their international brands through international players. Thus, they don't have to compete on a worldwide competition like the World Cup. They can sacrifice identifying domestic talent so they can sell more jerseys in China. This exists in major soccer leagues as well, but their focal points as Federations is what they can do to increase their domestic game, their domestic players, so they can win World Cups. Other sports don't have that goal in mind. If US soccer ever gets to the point that we are globally competitive in soccer, then MLS (or whoever is DI at that point) can do whatever they want to be a global brand. We need more focus on domestic talent development.
This is addressed by my previous post regarding "alienating" communities. Open the system. Promotion and relegation. That will bring community involvement for the sport -- or any sport that wants it. No one has to support "whoever is the nearest major metro area that has a team." Soccer becomes local. There is a rally around community pride and that local team. Investment comes from local owners/fans/businesses. There's nothing like it. The system promotes investment (financial AND personal). Kids have something to work towards, they can be identified earlier and be pushed higher easier. Every state should have its own league (or more) that promotes to a larger state league, promoting to a regional league, to a higher regional league, to a national league -- structures have been developed and exist. Open the system and there's immediately an emphasis in building local clubs with senior teams, and teams of all ages. We'd see 56 teams explode to over 1,000 (or more) instantly.
Growth or maintenance is not simply, nor solely, a measurement of [youth] participation…the popularity (whether growing or merely maintaining) of these sports is not really in jeopardy, nor do I believe lowering participation rates (across the board) will have a major or lasting impact on those sports developing future talent…it's apples to oranges in most regards when trying to compare soccer to those other sports…. To be honest, I really didn’t even know what we are arguing about anymore… No Soccer Player Left Behind? I agree, for the love God, I agree….
We don’t even really have a system to open…I love promotion and relegation in the EPL and other established league, but we ain’t ready for it, not even close… We did not have a Club-based sporting culture, and expecting one to explode anytime soon is a pipe-dream…we have an academic/collegiate-based one…figuring out how to run our pyramid/system through high schools and colleges should be our focus; that's where the community pride and passion, and the money lies…but I fully admit there is little to no incentive to do so…we keep trying to pound that square peg in a round hole…
mwulf and I agree often and this is last post is another I agree with. Soccer has to find a way to coordinate with all of the systems (HC, NCAA, USSF, MLS, etc.). In the sports I listed above each has a pretty well defined HS season and associated club season. Basketball is universally winter in HS and big time club in the summer. Wrestling, water polo, and hockey are the same. Diving is fall/winter and then all big national events are summer. The one thing these all have in common is the ability to compete locally (HS) in one common season across the country and then have the rest of the year for club with the culmination coming in the summer, when it is easier to travel and not worry about missing school. Soccer operates the exact opposite. HS soccer is spread around between fall, winter, and spring (state dependent) and for the most part the summer is void of any soccer. Even neighboring states have different HS seasons so regional club play is hindered. USSF maintaining a "school year" schedule for the DA and outlawing HS soccer runs counter to other sports when if things were to shift 3 months and summer not being "off season" soccer could mesh as other sports have done. If soccer were to take a page out of the other sports playbook and get all of the interested parties to agree to common "seasons" I think you would see participation increase as everyone could have their needs met, from the rec JV player up through the DA and beyond. Other sports have figured this out but we always stand behind "soccer is different" but obviously "different" hasn't worked. At what point is the soccer community ready to try something else?
@ThePonchat... how do the lower leagues in Europe make their money? I'd love to see more leagues (of different levels) in the US. But unless they can make some money, why would anyone invest in them? I'd love to see "state" teams in the U18+ age groups. College soccer is in the fall, so have these teams play in the spring with playoffs in the summer. Treat them like minor league baseball. I just don't know if the money is there.
It helps that soccer is the number one sport in most European countries. Here it ranks fourth, so much harder to make money at it. They also have pro-rel which at least gives a glimmer of hope to smaller clubs.
Are discussions always arguments? What's wrong with a good ol' discussion these days? I've been trying to figure out (and I've asked the question) on what exactly your stance is? The only thing you've argued against is a curriculum, for whatever reason -- mainly, a curriculum doesn't exist in football, basketball, and baseball, so they've done fine without one by producing a LeBron (amongst others). You've stated that those sports work out just fine with entry-level coaches. But, you've also stated that soccer cannot really use semi-educated parent coaches who have entry-level (to no-level) playing experiences. All at the same time, saying that trying to educated more [parent-]coaches isn't all that valuable. So, what's your solution?
We do have a system to open. And USSF could lead that any day now. It can help soccer grow exponentially. If it were to ever happen, guaranteed there'd be minimum 1,000 applications for new clubs almost immediately. We'd see major youth clubs investing in 1st/senior teams. We'd see more investors stay domestically. No doubt in my mind. The money is there. The interest is there, just look at who takes money overseas. We keep saying, "we aren't ready." When is "ready"? Look at what happens when you throw an ambitious club like FC Cincinnati out there. Support follows. Now, just imagine not having to spend $150m for the rights to a team, you have a team and you start playing. That $150m now is invested in the team itself. It's not something that would happen overnight. But, a timeline for implementation. Lower level teams make money through media revenue sharing (something that doesn't exist in US) and Solidarity Payments/Training Compensation (something that doesn't exist in US). Those are two of the biggest revenue streams. Yes, ticketing and merchandise are great, but they pale in comparison to those other avenues of revenue streams. Also, add in League and Domestic Cups, that's additional revenue.
Not at all…there are arguments, discussions, even monologs masquerading as conversations…it’s all good…so is this, whatever, this is… I simply don’t believe that “curriculum” is the panacea you claim it to be, nor to do I believe that those other “curriculum-less” sports are struggling at all to produce talent, in both terms of quantity and quality… I am not necessarily against it, I just view as having limited value… The solution is soccer players having babies, who then grow up to be soccer players…wash, rinse, repeat… In the meantime, I get it, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING!!!! By all means, knock yourself out with your curriculum and classes… I will fully cop to being rather fatalistic and pessimistic regarding US soccer, at this point…rearrange those deck chairs all you like; just don’t expect to make a big difference either way…
Interest?…as you’ll said, there appears to be interest in marathon bicycle racing, then US professional soccer…
We've already been to the point that "soccer players having babies, who then grow up to be soccer players." We are already there. Have been for many years. In some areas, yes, it's slower than others. That still exists in all other sports too. Other sports ARE struggling. Just because your opinion says something different, doesn't mean the facts aren't right. Youth sports have declining participation since 2008. Why? Part of it HAS to be chalked up to the lack of education/learning by youth athletes. All sports. Period. I said from the beginning, soccer has an advantage to address this because of a central-governing body. Hardly any other sport has yet to truly address this issue, so soccer COULD. Only 31% of all youth coaches say they have received specific training regarding "skills and tactics." That's extremely poor. The sports that HAVE chosen to address participation have seen positive results. Golf and tennis, being some of those main ones. The NBA and USA Basketball partnered together, to create their first-ever youth basketball guidelines [gasp, curriculum!]. Why? "The Wild West culture of grassroots basketball now has a playbook to reshape its activity -- should it desire." From the NBA VP of youth basketball development, "Youth sports in general are fragmented and lack structure, so to say that grassroots basketball is at the top of the heap (with challenges) is really saying something." Shocking! Even the NBA recognizes something needed done. You don't though. Almost all entities with basketball endorsed the guidelines -- AAU, Boys & Girls Club, adidas, Nike, UA, and even the NCAA. USSF has had opportunities to spur the development of the game and has failed. They could do so much more. There's been more done by lesser countries (resources, facilities, etc.). But, this laissez faire attitude by the leadership and supporters continues to hold back what could get done. Clearly shows you really aren't up on where investment is, and where it's coming from. Also, the fan interest in promotion/relegation. I love conversing, but when it's just hypothetical talk without real substance behind it, it's just fluff.
US Soccer is anything but laissez faire. They have more top-down control than other sports. You just pointed out how closed the system is.
I was going along the lines of the attitude, not the policies. That's why I stated "laissez faire attitude." They've just let it go without having any positive influence in growing the game. Zero initiatives. As I mentioned previously, would anyone support their favorite non-profit if that non-profit had no strategy? Would Wounded Warriors exist how it did without a strategy to help wounded vets? Would DARE do all the good its done for drug-resistance without strategy? Insert your own non-profit. No. They'd be crap. Exactly what USSF has shown for years without ANY strategy of how to grow the game in the US. The J-League started just before MLS did. Guess what Japan had? A 100-year vision to make soccer successful, sustainable, and proud for the Japanese people. FIFA just released an initiative to grow women's football (yes, many years too late, but did it). Why nothing from USSF? Why nothing from state associations? Laissez faire of just letting things go. It'll all sort it out. Right now, it's not because there's no direction with the same good ol' boy leadership that's been in existence since 2006.
I disagree. You're now seeing the start of the 2nd generation soccer players. Get another two, three, or four generations in and then we'll see how good participation is. Baseball, football, basketball have been around for multiple generations. You not only have parents teaching kids fundamentals, but grandparents.
Why does it HAVE to be? You have zero proof of that…that simply your opinion because its helps push your agenda… Far clearer and generally more accepted reasons for falling participation rates across the board are - over specialization, hypercompetitive selection processes, the rising in cost to participate and competition from our growing video game/internet society…all of these things help drive out kids from youth sports earlier and earlier….and even the ones that stay, are more than likely to only be participating in one sport…as multiple sport athletics are quickly becoming a thing of the past… These numbers are not dropping due to a lack of curriculum…sure, Sports may react to these lower numbers, or maybe they coincidentally or unrelatedly believe it’s simply a good idea to create curriculum and training programs…but to claim the lack of these programs and initiatives was or is driving those decreasing numbers in the first place, is ludicrous… Once again, I have no problem with setting standards or guidelines…I have even gone out and looked over the USA Basketball standards…some good stuff…things like smaller ball and lower baskets seem like no-brainers, but whatever…no zone defense and equal playtime are great concepts…just not sure these standards are really going to change a damn thing, but hey, it feels good to write them down… No offence, but you are completely off your nut…you are a zealot and that’s great; love the passion…but you are completely delusional when it comes to the interest, support and money when it comes to US soccer…there is some there, it’s even improving and growing, but it’s nowhere near where you think, claim or want it be…
That's why I said, depending on area. There are areas where soccer is definitely 100 years old in the US. In other areas, it's young. Heck, in South Dakota, it's only been a sanctioned HS sport for around 5 years. Soccer is not "new" to the United States. No matter how many people claim it is. There's leagues that are 90+ years old.
USSF has had plenty initiatives. They just don't work. In the last 20 years they've rolled out Project 2010 (which is hilarious, in retrospect), the residency academy (since shuttered), the DA and the Reyna curriculum. If anything, I think they've been more focused on grandiose plans than the basic nuts and bolts. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just a little confused as to where you're coming out on this. At first you seemed to argue that the USSF, with some centralized power and it's curriculum, gave soccer a leg up on other sports. Now the problem is the do nothing USSF.
Yes. My agenda is to grow the game and help players develop. Of course a curriculum will benefit that. Ask any other country how important it is to have a development pathway. Kids participate when they are having fun. What makes sport "fun"? Knowing how to play. Even more, for soccer, it's possibly more important that kids have educated people to help them grow and develop SINCE they may not have a family member playing. We'll never keep the sport growing if we don't help more coaches develop into better coaches. That can be done through the recreational leagues where there's millions of kids playing locally and for much cheaper than club alternatives. Never once said they were dropping due to lack of curriculum. Show where I've ever said that. I say they are dropping because they don't know how to play and it's not "fun." Possibly. But it's better than being so complacent as what you've shown. You literally do not know how much has been invested in the sport do you? They've even said billions in MLS since day one. It's gotten us really nowhere. You do realize that when MLS was founded, their goal was to win a World Cup by 2010 (I think was the year). They then went to Project 2020. Guess what, we are really no more competitive now than we were then. Wouldn't that make one step back and realize, maybe our "leaders" aren't really getting anything done? Why have other countries with LESS done MORE in less time? Yes, it's culture. And, that's where USSF can lead top-down AND get more from bottom-up. Name anything that USSF has done to grow the game. Name anything USSF has done to implement changes to impact the game. I'll give you two, and they were nothing: USSDA implementation -- 2007 USSF Player Development Initiatives (heading, field sizes, birth-year) -- 2017 What are either of these going to do to truly grow the game?
It is not a question of newness…Yes, soccer has been in the US for 100+ years, nobody is claiming otherwise, but that didn’t mean its entrenched in our sporting culture or that it is just as ingrained in our collective being as Baseball, football and basketball are…these is no ground swell of popular support, nor a ton of money just waiting to be thrown at a league pyramid with relegation and promotion; the fact you think there is, quite frankly, dampens a lot of your credibility…
Not taking it as argumentative at all. There's really been nothing from USSF that's anything but "elitist" just like they are with MLS. The USSDA isn't anything. It's overblown club soccer. It's for who wants to pay money and join their fraternity. It impacts so few kids. The curriculum is not bad, I've utilized it because clubs and coaches need directions -- helped grow a club to be twice its size in 2.5 years of working with it. I've also worked with 3 other clubs who have no curriculum and it shows. I've said since the first post, I believe. USSF has the ability to make some great moves FOR the game. They have failed overall. They've not shown any leadership. Seriously, who thought the heading initiative and birth-year mandates were good ideas? I always argued FOR the heading initiative though, kids need to learn how to play soccer more than just Route 1 soccer. Now, more than ever does USSF possess the ability to make an impact, but they've been mum. Dwindling youth soccer numbers, and they have nothing in response. Missing the World Cup, they've done nothing since firing JK in 2016. Two years since having a permanent manager and we still wait.