USSF Development Academy 2.0

Discussion in 'Youth National Teams' started by Real Corona, Mar 22, 2012.

  1. Peter Bonetti

    Peter Bonetti Member+

    Jan 1, 2005
    1970 WC Quarterfinal
    FIFA ruled correctly. There are reduced tuition scholarships for people who qualify for free and reduced lunch at public schools, club sponsored scholarships, team sponsored scholarships, partial scholarships, etc., etc. Better to stay out of this complex area.

    If a club invests in a player, compensate them. Otherwise, a pay to play club needs to understand that they are not the same thing. I coach at a pay to play club that does a decent job developing players and I don’t think, based on our model, we should be compensated. Parents or the government are the ones who are really investing in these kids at a club like mine. That is a legal mess not far down the road that we don’t want.
     
    jeff_adams repped this.
  2. Peter Bonetti

    Peter Bonetti Member+

    Jan 1, 2005
    1970 WC Quarterfinal
    I was thinking about this as well - there are often unintended consequences for major changes like this. Even if legal rulings end up in favor of the clubs, parents will look at how they pay clubs, teams, coaches very differently.

    Regardless, this will be the first in a long line of rulings. Once large amounts of money are in play, people will follow up each ruling with clarification after clarification.
     
  3. bpet15

    bpet15 Member

    Oct 4, 2016
    I can promise your situation is not the same across the board. Many clubs that charge dues are a flat fee of say $2,000 for the year. If there are 5 kids on scholarship it is more the exception for 10 parents to pay $3,000 and make up the difference than the rule.

    People love to give the non-MLS a hard time because of pay to play. The fact is, many of them do the right thing by the kids while still trying to run a business.
     
  4. asoc

    asoc Member+

    Sep 28, 2007
    Tacoma
    Are parents not paying members of an organization that is part of the USSF?
     
  5. Nope, the players are.
     
  6. asoc

    asoc Member+

    Sep 28, 2007
    Tacoma
    The parents are paying the money. They have a financial interest in the situation. They are paying for a service and have rights that go along with that ongoing service being provided to them.
    The parents are indeed part of the clubs their kids are playing in.
     
  7. That doesnot matter. Parents pay the membership fees for their kids in the Netherlands too.
    Amateur club Nijmegen received in 2003 140000€€ (140k) because of the transfer of Roy Makaay from Coruna to Bayern. Parents pay membership fees to the club to let their kids play football and training. Nobody even thinks about claiming money, because the clubs in fact are all not for profit foundations. Plus there's no legal ground for any claim at all.
    To play in competitions kids must be member of the federation KNVB. Compensations are only related to the kids being member, not to whoever pays the fees to the clubs.
     
    Winoman repped this.
  8. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Fans and sponsors pay the club-should they get a cut of transfer fees too?
     
  9. bpet15

    bpet15 Member

    Oct 4, 2016
    Simple fix - actual bookkeeping that shows how much $ in dues a parent paid. Kid signs and club gets training comp - club reimburses parent and keeps the rest.
     
  10. You can't fix a problem that doesnot exist.
     
  11. Pegasus

    Pegasus Member+

    Apr 20, 1999
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    My comments here were a joke. But they do deserve the money more than a pay to play club.

    Also responding to the everyone pats 2k comments - yes and included in the budget for that team would be acknowledging that so many play 2k and others get half and full scholarships. The scholarship kids don't pay because of those parents paying 2k instead of no scholarships and everyone paying 1.5 k. If you think this is incorrect then exactly where is the money from scholarships coming? Perhaps a company is donating money? But then again the pay to play club isn't paying.
     
    asoc and TarHeels17 repped this.
  12. Actually in the Netherlands, as I already posted, amateur clubs are not for profit foundations with the members (most of the times with an age restriction) electing the persons to run the club. So in fact it are the members who decide what's going to happen with the compensations. These are typically spent on improving grounds, facilities, stands.
     
  13. Runhard

    Runhard Member

    Barcelona
    United States
    Jul 5, 2018

    I have been around enough to know its probably both. I have floated other kids on teams but also known coaches that would take less just to have a great kid on the team. The reason being wining helps his team get to the top of the youth league and go to big showcases, therefore helping him recruit more kids for next year or his other teams.

    Point in all of this is there is ZERO downside to letting the non-mls clubs get in on player development and incentivize them to do so. Imagine what payouts could do for a small club to incentivize them to change their focus from winning youth games to creating and selling players. There is only upside to this for those wanting US soccer to field better national teams and develop the domestic league. If the clubs developed enough players and made enough of an income stream from same, they could move out of the mold of pay to play all together.

    don't think FCD doesn't make most of its money from pay to play teams. Those teams (all paying 3K per kid) all pay for the academy kids to be free so perhaps those parents should get the fees when FCD claims training compensation.
     
    bpet15 repped this.
  14. Pegasus

    Pegasus Member+

    Apr 20, 1999
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'm not sure we're on the same page here. I'm not arguing against convincing more clubs to develop players I'm just pointing out that clubs that charge most players with a few on scholarships that don't come from club ownership (do pay for play clubs even have owners) aren't going to be looked at favorably by FIFA. If possible it would be great if a lot of clubs converted to what you're suggesting but it would have to be a new model where a big pockets owner assumes the club and doesn't charge so that they can sell and sign players. I don't see why those type of clubs wouldn't be eligible for payments but I'm not sure a small club in the US trying that model has happened yet.
     
    Peter Bonetti repped this.
  15. Peter Bonetti

    Peter Bonetti Member+

    Jan 1, 2005
    1970 WC Quarterfinal
    This thread is actually pretty good - you have people discussing different sides of a new issue - it is new because of FIFA’s new ruling. Expect many more rulings in the future as FIFA is forced to clarify every aspect of this issue. As much as some would like to believe it, this is not simple and clear cut if you take into account all of the different financial arrangements and the variations of each one. Our country didn’t start with a professional game, so we have a bit of a weird, Frankenstein like structure to our youth soccer that complicates everything that comes after it. Every youth club runs itself in a completely different way. My guess is THAT will have to change before all of this compensation stuff gets completely solved.

    Good points all around though.
     
    Winoman repped this.
  16. Runhard

    Runhard Member

    Barcelona
    United States
    Jul 5, 2018

    I see what you are saying but if the smaller clubs were entitled to training compensation I think it would happen tomorrow. I could see where DT or Solar for the NTX crowd could simply make the DA totally free and those kids would be the ones they would sell. ( they would have gotten money for Blaine Ferri) It would be funded by the all the other teams but this is also the way it is done at FCD. I doubt if FCD had zero pay to play teams they would be so interested in fully funding the DA when there pro team is probably in the RED every year.

    Hopefully we will find in the next few years.
     
  17. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    I don't know that MLS clubs are against training compensation for non-MLS DA clubs. I haven't really heard anybody from MLS HQ or MLS directors speak about it.

    I think we'd all agree that Houston Texans getting a piece of the Chris Richards pie would be great, for instance. [Of course the Houston Texans didn't compensate BUSA when Richards moved to their academy either. Nobody mentions that, but c'est la vie.]

    However, the class action lawsuit from the Texans, Sockers, and Crossfire was thrown out. Now FIFA has ruled on three different occasions against these clubs. I don't really know where this goes from here...................................
     
  18. bpet15

    bpet15 Member

    Oct 4, 2016
    I find the argument against training comp/solidarity payments for pay to play clubs hugely flawed. The FIFA rule states absolutely nothing about making payments for only those clubs that are fully funded. Furthermore, MLS DA clubs can call themselves fully funded all they want, some are and some aren't.

    I know FCD charges a good amount to kids to make their International trips and even big domestic tournaments. If the number I have been told are correct, they are about equal to the dues paid to other clubs. Granted, MLS DA clubs are probably cheaper than non-MLS DA clubs, but most are far from fully funded in the true sense of the term.

    There are many "football schools" over in Europe that are pay to play. These clubs are constantly picked over by the big clubs for players but they survive and even thrive because of the financial arrangement that is in place. Some are even paid before a pro contract is even offered. If I am not mistaken I think England has a financial structure in place for youth players that move to another club. It is very similar to the training comp category structure with reduced payments, but it is there. Other than some of the huge European clubs, many still charge parents for away trips and tournaments that their kids take part in.

    Our goal in the US should be to incentivize clubs to do the right thing by the player. Financial rewards is one way to do that. All of a sudden that scholarship player moving up an age group or two to take the place of a full paying player is not that big of a deal, because the development could be rewarded down the road.

    I would also like to see a system in place between MLS and non-MLS clubs where there is some kind of cooperation. Be it players, financial payments or sponsorships, they would all go a long way in developing better players.

    @Runhard is correct in saying that FCD Academy is "fully funded" because of all the youth teams that do pay dues. Some of these Academy players may not enter the Academy until age 13 now, which means they could have 8 years of paying dues and only 5 years of being part of a fully funded Academy. Are we to make exceptions for this scenario?

    In my humble opinion, pay to play should have no bearing on any clubs ability to reap the rewards that come with their role in developing a professional player. In the end, it isn't the money spent that developed the kid, it was the coaching, the environment in training and the mentorship from the club that ultimately helped.

    I know a ton of parents of FCD Academy players that still pay for individual training, is their an exception for this? Who's to say the private trainer didn't play a bigger role in making a kid professional than the Academy coach?

    Good discussion about a situation that is sure to be very fluid over the coming months and years. I hope our Fed is smart enough to do right by everyone and not just their MLS buddies they hop into bed with every night.
     
  19. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    Folks like @Runhard have been talking about this as it relates to FCD, but this appears to be a broader initiative.

     
  20. Runhard

    Runhard Member

    Barcelona
    United States
    Jul 5, 2018

    That's the one. Interesting thing I noticed is there does not appear to be anything a team can do to a player if they just ignore it? Can't make them sign it and if they do sign it, it doesn't appear the player has any real obligations under it. The main aspect seems to be making sure the MLS club knows if the player let's say goes to Europe on trial over the summer, they have to tell their home MLS Club. Problem is what happens if they don't, probably nothing, or the MLS club may cut them, but probably not.

    Also seems the agreement states if the player gets an offer from overseas they have to tell the MLS club and give them 14 days to respond. Again, what happens if they don't and the kid just signs and leaves?

    the MLS clubs are going to demand training compensation if the kid does or does not sign this so really no reason for it other than to put the kids under their thumb a little more in my view.

    Seems like an overreach by MLS to me. You are already going to get Training Compensation if your academy kids leave, if you want to get a transfer fee, then sign the kid to a real contract.
     
  21. Clint Eastwood

    Clint Eastwood Member+

    Dec 23, 2003
    Somerville, MA
    Club:
    FC Dallas
    We do remember a case in which Justin Rennicks went to a trial/training session in Europe without the Revs knowledge. The Revs response? Suspending him for the DA season. That seemed like cutting off their nose to spite their face.

    I would agree with you. This agreement is probably as legally binding as a "friendship bracelet."

    I do think that if a kid at an MLS academy is going on an overseas trial, the parent club should know about it. That's just being an honest human being. And giving an opportunity for the MLS club to match the offer? OK, that's fine too. The kid doesn't have to accept MLS' offer.

    To me its kinda Much Ado About Nothing.
     
    Runhard repped this.
  22. That's true. The only thing that matters is that the clubs and the players are members of the countries FA and that that is member of FIFA.
    As I mentioned Dutch amateur clubs charge a membership fee. It's true they arenot for profit clubs, but that in fact doesnot matter.
     
  23. Baysider

    Baysider Member+

    Jul 16, 2004
    Santa Monica
    Club:
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    I agree that it doesn't have much bite but I think it still serves a purpose.

    Say that a player (or union) sued the MLS team saying that the players didn't know when they signed up that they would be subject to training compensation because it hadn't happened in the past. This takes away that argument.

    The second part is a reminder to the player that whatever the agent tells them, MLS might be interested in signing them and would like to have a chance to make an offer.
     
  24. Runhard

    Runhard Member

    Barcelona
    United States
    Jul 5, 2018
    will be interesting to see if any kids refuse to sign this and the rosters at DA playoffs are missing any big names
     
  25. This is a weird argument as TC/SP is something among and between clubs and the player has no stake in it.
    It's the same thing when a selling club signs a transfer agreement with the buying club, that they receive a X% of the sell on transfer fee. The player never can fight that agreement, which in fact is the same as the TC/SP!

    Edit: In fact it's a superfluous thing as the player by becoming member of a club de facto subscribes to the TC/SP agreement. If he doesnot he cannot become a member and hence cannot play soccer under the umbrella of the nations FA!
     

Share This Page