Training Compensation now in Practice

Discussion in 'USA Men: News & Analysis' started by truefan420, Apr 18, 2019.

  1. truefan420

    truefan420 Member+

    May 30, 2010
    oakland
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  2. Bob Morocco

    Bob Morocco Member+

    Aug 11, 2003
    Billings, MT
    http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-le...ments-after-league-agrees-to-follow-fifa-rule

    My reading of the consent decree was that the Fed could not force its members to follow the rules but if someone decided to follow them on their own that wouldn’t breach the settlement.

    Now MLS is saying they are going to follow the rules and the Fed “will not be a party to enforcement of those regulations”, interesting. I wonder why MLS can “be a party” to the rules but the Fed can’t, what could be a factor in preventing their active participation.
     
  3. SilentAssassin

    Apr 16, 2007
    St. Louis
    It sounds to me like they don't want to actually govern soccer in the country. Aren't those types of disputes one of the main purposes of a national federation? If they don't want to lead because they're afraid someone will be angry, they should probably let someone else do it.
     
    TrueCrew, RalleeMonkey, majspike and 2 others repped this.
  4. truefan420

    truefan420 Member+

    May 30, 2010
    oakland
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    They have been letting someone else make all the decisions for them already. The MLS and SUM already run the Fed for the Fed.
     
    TrueCrew, RalleeMonkey, bsky22 and 4 others repped this.
  5. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    The hubris of this league is very impressive. When you get to pick and choose which rules you follow, this one is a no-brainer for the league. This will make harder for young players to leave and if they do, they get compensated for it. It looks like we are still a long way from anyone in the league or US soccer actually caring about the players.

    The MLSPA also accused MLS of cherry picking which FIFA regulations to follow, and adhering to only those that benefited the league financially.

    "The fact that training compensation and solidarity payments are paid elsewhere in the world under applicable FIFA regulations is an indefensible justification for this change," the MLSPA added. "MLS routinely ignores regulations that protect players under contract with MLS -- like those requiring guaranteed contracts, prohibiting unilateral options and limiting the length of contracts -- yet is now attempting to rely upon these same regulations to limit opportunities for players in youth academies.
     
    btlove, RalleeMonkey and truefan420 repped this.
  6. jond

    jond Member+

    Sep 28, 2010
    Club:
    Levski Sofia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The USSF is filled with a bunch of compromised pansies. Either mandate training comp and solidarity payments or don't, for the entire landscape.

    Instead MLS just picks and chooses.
     
    TrueCrew and truefan420 repped this.
  7. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    We do have to remember that the BIGGEST opponent to the whole training compensation/solidarity payment structure is the MLS Players Union. NOT the USSF. Not MLS HQ. Not the MLS clubs. Its the players themselves.

    You can rail against the USSF, but they've maintained a "position of neutrality" on this issue.

    FIFA ruled again on this yesterday. They're pretty clear about it. This is three times in the past six weeks. They sided with Spurs over Crossfire this time. And you can read what Spurs arguments were.

    FIFA rules against solidarity payments over Yedlin's Tottenham transfer
    http://www.espn.com/soccer/major-league-soccer/story/3839481/fifa-rules-against-solidarity-payments-over-yedlins-tottenham-transfer
     
  8. Pegasus

    Pegasus Member+

    Apr 20, 1999
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    On twitter I read someone's opinion on this and I kind of agree with it. Solidarity payments were established for clubs who train players and sign them as professionals for future compensation. If the player moves on and there is no compensation then that club will go out of business. In the case of most clubs in the US even if a player is on a scholarship the club was covered by the fees of the rest of their players so that they won't go out of business. They also don't sign them as professionals because they have no professional team. Now, some of the MLS and other pro teams have players they train and hope to sign as pros to either play for their club or get compensated for if they move on.

    If this is how FIFA is looking at this do local pay-for-play clubs change, no longer charge any players and add the lowest level pro team and start trying to sign their best prospects to that team or just stay with what they're doing now even knowing if they train a player that eventually turns into a monster signing (ala Pulisic) they won't get a penny?
     
  9. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    In fact this is exactly part of the argument that FIFA agreed with when ruling in the favor of Spurs.

    I do sorta wonder. Surely there is precedence here. Surely there are local non-professional youth clubs in countries like Germany that train youngsters until they get noticed/picked up by pro teams.
     
  10. Pegasus

    Pegasus Member+

    Apr 20, 1999
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Surely but they may not charge although if they don't sign them to pro deals then perhaps that part isn't necessary. Does FIFA feel like they've already been paid? Kind of tricky if a kids on a free ride scholarship but it's other parents picking that up. I'm sure I helped other kids get scholarships when my son(s) played. Maybe the parents should sue for compensation from Chelsea for Pulisic.
     
    superdave repped this.
  11. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Its worth noting that there are a lot of clubs that aren't on board with what Crossfire./Texans/Sockers are doing. They're all just watching from the shadows. Once training compensation starts, their world changes completely.

    There was a mountain of press and columns written about how PA Classics were getting screwed out of training compensation payments when Pulisic was sold to Chelsea. The OUTRAGE amongst the assembled intelligentsia!

    And then somebody bothered to ask the director of PA Classics about it.
    http://www.espn.com/soccer/soccer-t...sue-solidarity-payment-after-chelsea-transfer

    "If we were a club that wasn't pay-to-play, it would be a whole different ball game," he said. "Our kids pay to play, so that's how we make our money. Now, we scholarship a lot of kids, but that's where the difference is for me a little bit. If we were one of those European clubs where everyone is free, or an MLS club where everyone is free, and signed him as a pro ... we're not even a pro club."

    Klein admits that the lure of receiving the money is tempting, but that it wouldn't necessarily cover much of the team's budget, especially if they hired a lawyer.

    "If you fully funded one academy age group like the U17s, you're probably looking at $300,000 for one team," he said. "You couldn't really fund your full academy for one year. The money is great, trust me. Maybe you could put a lit turf field in, which would be awesome. The money is significant. I don't want anyone thinking, 'Aw that's peanuts to PA Classics.' It's not, it's just a matter of all the extra stuff that would come with it. I'm just not sure."
     
    WrmBrnr repped this.
  12. jond

    jond Member+

    Sep 28, 2010
    Club:
    Levski Sofia
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't really care who's for or against it.

    The USSF is the governing entity and it should rule for or against solidarity payments for the entire landscape.

    The situation where a league can suddenly decide whether it wants to comply is ridiculous. It should in no way be a league's decision.
     
    majspike, bsky22 and TimB4Last repped this.
  13. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    The USSF isn't the issue. The PLAYERS THEMSELVES have been the issue. Crossfire, the Dallas Texans, and the Sockers sued the MLS Players Union and the three individual players (Yedlin, Dempsey, and Bradley). They did not sue the USSF. The USSF has not been what's standing in the way of training compensation payments in this country.

    The clubs' class-action lawsuit was dismissed. The comments from the MLPU rep in this column are really instructive.

    https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/dis...-lawsuit-involving/1b8v7nwsg8dpk1xrq7qap8q9ll

    So the clubs then went to FIFA, and all three cases have been dismissed.

    For the non-professional clubs in this country, this is going nowhere. Its a non-starter.
     
    WrmBrnr repped this.
  14. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    That is what "everyone" (MLS) wanted us to believe. It used to benefit them that they didnt have to pay those fees.

    If you look at where the three parties stand, I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.

    - Players dont want their movement restricted
    - The League wants to get paid
    - Governing body doesnt want to govern

    I can understand the first two, but have no clue as to why that is the feds take. Blaming it on the players is a joke when the league just unilaterally decided to implement it and the fed doesnt care.

    The majority of problems in this country are due to the fed. In this case, as with many others, their lack of leadership leads to chaos. With a little leadership, structure and incentives, the whole structure of youth soccer and player development could be improved dramatically.
     
  15. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    The Fed's position has basically been one of neutrality between clubs and players. That's their official stance anyway. Now................of course one can argue that by staying out of it, the Fed was taking the position of maintaining the status quo.

    People talk about "the federation" like its one person with one voice.. Remember that there are also sorts of interests on the USSF Board of Directors. They're an umbrella group. That board INCLUDES player representatives. And they're also former players like Carlos Bocanegra on that board. So who knows that the argument has been at the USSF about this issue....................

    Why was MLS not in the training compensation/solidarity payment game? Well..............because in the first 20 years of the league they'd be PAYING a lot more of these payments than RECEIVING them. It was a colossal money losing proposition for them. So they decided not to be part of it. They weren't going to pay them, nor were they going to receive them.
     
    RalleeMonkey and mbar repped this.
  16. Bob Morocco

    Bob Morocco Member+

    Aug 11, 2003
    Billings, MT
    I laid this out in the general coaching thread but here’s a short summary:

    The players sued MLS and the Fed. They agreed to drop the part of the suit against the Fed if the Fed would enter into an agreement to not implement or enforce any FIFA rules that function like TC/S. That then happened.

    The Fed seems to have been active in maintaining the settlement’s conditions but now that youth clubs and MLS (the two groups that control the Fed) have an incentive to see them applied the Fed is following “the letter of the law” instead of the spirit of the settlement. Meaning that they can’t implement these rules but don’t have an active duty to prevent their members from participating. This opens themselves up to a straightforward suit for breaking the settlement agreement but one they think they will win based on its wording.
     
    gogorath and Baysider repped this.
  17. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    Neutrality is status quo and not leadership.

    Sound organizations make decisions all the time. Large, dysfunctional ones do too. The federations inaction is at the root of all the messes that exist in the game in this country.

    Which makes MLS complaints about losing players for nothing laughable since that has been their approach up until recently.
     
    RalleeMonkey repped this.
  18. Baysider

    Baysider Member+

    Jul 16, 2004
    Santa Monica
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    True, but Clint is right about why we end up with this. The president of the USSF is not, as a functional matter, in charge of soccer in this country. No single individual or organization is.

    Training compensation is a particular mess. You have three separate interest groups (players, MLS, youth clubs) pushing in different directions in a world where the law is just not clear. Because MLS is the most organized of the groups it's easiest for them to respond to the situation which is why they get their way - training compensation when they want it, no training compensation when they don't.

    But I don't think it's the USSF that's going to keep training compensation from the non-MLS clubs. That has to be sorted out with FIFA. That and the legal challenges.
     
  19. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    Who said anything about the president? The organization of the fed is the governing body of the game in the US.

    It is a mess because of the "organization" of the federation. The whole thing is quite simple. The Federation enforces training comp whenever it is due. MLS should get training comp for players assuming the players havent paid to be in the club. Clubs that charge their players have no claim for compensation. Players can choose what club they want to play at and whether the club is entitled to training comp should be one of the factors.

    If MLS hasnt paid it to an eligible club in the the past, that is despicable and makes their whining about losing players recently even more embarrassing. They shouldn't get to pick and choose what rules they follow and this reflects poorly on the Federation and country as whole.
     
  20. Pegasus

    Pegasus Member+

    Apr 20, 1999
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Then why did FIFA shoot down Yedlin's old club? The thinking is because they were pay to play so they don't deserve it compared to clubs set up with fee admission to sign players to pro contracts. The US was not set up like the rest of the world. MLS academies and a few USL academies are just in the last few years doing what the rest of the world has for decades.
     
    WrmBrnr and jaykoz3 repped this.
  21. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    I gather from this that traditional clubs are eligible for this compensation. But aren't they being paid for their training? I came through select. It wasn't just your portion of league and tournament expenses, you paid for the trainer every month. In exchange, I was a free agent at all times playing for fun, not under contract, who could quit that weekend, change teams next summer, etc. We achieved a decent level of success but it was by definition amateur. They get a cut? Heck no.

    I mean, I assume Dempsey was paying training fees, was paying for his gas to get to Dallas, etc. Look at a map of how far it is from Nac to Dallas.

    And part of the reason to do it this was is so we could all go play NCAA if we wanted. I realize that this verges on tautology, but isn't there an amateurism problem with claiming the professional value of your players, even if retrospectively? It wouldn't happen until the moment they are purchased -- a professional act -- but in essence you're saying back then he was a professional commodity. At least as of now. OK, so which players are which? The guy standing next to him in the team photo who outplayed him when they were 15, but plateaued and went NCAA, he's amateur? Meh.

    I think you could separate out pro academies and this works better, though you still have the amateurism paradox. Do MLS or USL academies charge? OK, so they gave you free training in an environment everyone concerned would have acknowledged was a pro pyramid. The whole point was "Houston Dynamo train me and maybe sign me at the end." In MLS terms you basically agree that team has dibs on you. OK, if you go abroad and money changes hands, yeah, maybe that team should get some percentage. Not much, but something.

    But you'd still have the problem that academy systems are a funnel and only x% of the inputs end up outputted as professionals, and the rest will want to preserve their amateur status for college. And preserving that, the players are unpaid and treated like amateurs until they sign a contract.

    This also makes more sense in European or Mexican systems where you might play age group youth ball until around 20, and where you might sign a professional contract but still be an age group player. So Mr. Transfer never was a first team number but he was under professional contract albeit playing as a U19. Here U19 in normal play, or even Super Y League or whatever, is still supposedly amateur. You sign a pro deal and the age groups disappear and you're usually not even age appropriate PDL -- which is still basically amateur -- you're either USL or MLS.

    So there's an argument to be made it should still be the pro deal that decides and that Europeans and Mexicans would just benefit from professionalized higher age group play that offers something other than an on-off switch like here, where you are basically either in an adult situation or supposedly amateur.
     
  22. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    What about loans? Loans might even outweigh transfers for that young age range. Players on up to Weah might be with x this year, y next year, maybe the first team, maybe sold. Maybe the arrangement is loan-to-buy. Maybe a fee is involved. Those fees reflect value just like a transfer. My Dynamo are cheap and routinely take on loan-to-buys. I have criticized the practice as involving additional fees on top of a purchase. "Paying twice." Still solidarity?

    I mean, there are teams almost loaning out a whole second side. I assume it's not just a roster dodge but earns some money. Do they not have to share fees back just because it's a loan?

    Second, I could understand the first sale if you were on a professional deal. What if you are serially loaned or serially sold? Does your youth team really get the second sale too, up to the age limit? To me it should be a "first transfer" thing and perhaps with a time limit plus an age limit. You can get a solidarity fee for the first move up to age 21 and/or 3 years after they left. If they left at 16 and signed pro and moved twice you shouldn't get to cash in for 5 years every time. If a kid is being loaned 3 times in 3 years are we really giving you a cut the third time?
     
  23. bsky22

    bsky22 Member+

    Dec 8, 2003
    Not following your question.
     
  24. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    I went into it in my post as well. Traditional club is generally pay to play. I compensate the club and trainer for their services and pay my share of league/ref/tournament/travel/hotel costs. The cost of such services has long been a bone of contention as it skews the teams "country club" and makes it hard for the poor to play the more organized version of the sport outside a school setting, where the coach may or may not even be a soccer coach, much less one of the sharper local soccer minds to train up the next generation. Also impacts access to college and pro because select is the primary pipeline to ODP, YNT, big time college, small time college, the pros. Players on mediocre or small HS teams, in ethnic leagues, and otherwise not in the pipeline disappear off the standard radar.

    I know a couple times my team covered me when my dad took ill or was out of work. But it's a business and that is not required.

    The MLS and USL academies don't just provide a professional setting but also are often free to anyone willing to make the trip to their training ground. They in some ways respond to the pay for play issue. They thus attract an interesting mix of ambitious kids but also poorer ones. In that sense they imitate more of the European approach, duh, I know.

    But the big picture importance is, one team I already paid out of pocket to be part of, the other may have in fact let me participate for free. The former was already compensated, arguably. We don't sign a contract, I can play for another club next season. I will then pay that club. Versus, the academy invested in me with no cost, and perhaps they deserve a slice. Why should I give up transfer money to my team that I already had to pay to play? They have already been compensated for my training, by definition. They sent me an invoice. Mom and dad cut them a check.

    If you read my post, however, I slightly complicated this because I may not be committed to the club by any contract. The hitch here is in Europe you can be a contract player but assigned to youth teams. You may then actually play your first first team ball elsewhere. In that context I would think you definitely should owe them something. Versus, you paid the team. But also versus, you weren't under contract to the MLS academy, and that may even be intentional to preserve amateurism. Should this only start with a professional contract signed? Or is the distinction whether I already paid.

    Like I said on Dempsey, they made a long drive a few times a week, they may have also paid fees to the team, covered their own expenses. I used to work summer jobs for our big road trips for tournaments. When I had to do that are they really going to get 5% of the transfer? When there may even be intermediate stops between then and now?
     
  25. juvechelsea

    juvechelsea Member+

    Feb 15, 2006
    #25 juvechelsea, May 6, 2019
    Last edited: May 6, 2019
    The distance from Nac -- where Dempsey grew up -- to Dallas -- where his club team was -- is 163 miles. The distance from Houston to Austin. He probably made that round trip (and multiple that distance x2) 2-3 times a week for practice plus games. He may have been paying for all the various costs I outlined. They didn't board him, they didn't pay him, they probably didn't have him on scholarship. Thus he could go to Furman on graduation. We may play select 8 years or so, I did. Do the math on fees. And they want a slice? Sorry, you weren't exactly Ajax, doing it for free but with an acknowledged eye at the back end.

    The counter-argument would go something like this. Raw athletes or dancers with the ball are often widely available in an area, but nothing much comes of them if they aren't trained. I was fast but what made me a useful soccer player at a higher level was training on defensive positioning, odd man drills, etc. If you didn't have the club are you the out of shape guy who can dribble circles around people for 20 minutes but has no soccer IQ and can't play 90 without keeling over and being subbed? Are you an overly physical red card machine who whacks people but lacks any positioning sense or chess game grasp? The youth team (and then any HS and college and ODP/YNT) made you what you are. OK, cut me in for that.
     

Share This Page