MLS teams are going this direction and Earnie Stewart brought a lot of this to Philly. That written, I’m totally fine with pro clubs getting some sort of kickback. The Yedlin case is not about that, however, it’s a completely different model of club.
Tottenham, not the evil MLS, are fighting solidarity payments to Crossfire, on the grounds that they were already compensated by Yedlin's parents.
If anyone wants to do some reading about solidarity payments: https://www.lawinsport.com/topics/a...s-an-effective-solution-or-a-lost-opportunity
A bit of a broad update on the issues and the direction MLS seems to be taking: https://ussoccerplayers.com/2019/01...yer-development-space.html?platform=hootsuite
"This country’s federation and its top-flight pro league have long maintained a cozier working relationship than most." That's the sort of blasé statement that stirs up unjustified criticism of USSF Most big leagues have their domestic federations in their pockets. As for the story, I think and hope TC/SP will happen but it will be interesting to see how pay-to-play academies react. For instance, will they give scholarships in the hope of attracting the most talented kids away from MLS in the hope of a greater return down the road? Will they start to compete with NCAA for 18+ talent? Could some MLS teams partner with established academies rather than operate their own? And will a decision in favor of TC/SP encourage non-MLS clubs to form professional free-to-play academies?
I don't see how the pay to play teams could possibly go to fully funded and free. Who pays for it? There is no way that TC and SP will fully fund programs. Aside from that, the expense involved in paying TC has the potential to make signing young players impossible for most teams below MLS and severely limit what they spend on salaries across the board.
It's a chicken or the egg situation, imho. Scholarships on a PtP team are currently funded by the non-scholarship players, so the question arises, do you require the teams to be free to play before you give them solidarity payments/training compensation, or is it okay for them to be pay to play and still get solidarity payments/training compensation in the hopes that they will reduce the costs to their players in the hope they can go free to play. I highly doubt you'll see any development programs starting U23 programs. Some . MLS teams already do.. From what I understand, the Timbers have basically taken over Oregon's youth soccer association and all of the youth teams in Oregon funnel into the Timber's academy teams. Before the Union set-up their own academy, they created partnerships with some of the existing pay to play teams in the Philadelphia area. I'm not sure if that is still going on now that they have their own academy team, tho. And will a decision in favor of TC/SP encourage non-MLS clubs to form professional free-to-play academies?[/QUOTE]
I think he was nicked by Sounders academy. His path was: 2006-2009 Washington Youth Soccer’s State Olympic Development Program and Emerald City FC 2009-10 Crossfire Premier (pay to play) 2010-11 Seattle Sounders Academy 2011-13 University of Akron and Seattle Sounders U23 (PDL) 2013-14 Seattle Sounders 2014-16 Spurs ($3.71 million) and Sunderland (loan) 2016- Newcastle ($6.54 million)
That's the equivalent of saying a K-12 private school nicked a kid from a K-5 primary school in the 3rd grade. He has to leave the primary school for grades 6-12. That is the problem. Is it better if the kid aged out and then left. Is it not the same then?
I don’t think that was really the point. I think it’s entirelt possible that this won’t fly under US law and I also really don’t think this was meant to apply to youth teams with now pro path.
I'm kind of thinking this thread has long since passed the chess criteria of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefold_repetition and should be closed unless there's an actual ruling or settlement or something.
If you're an Athletic subscriber and somewhat new to the controversy, great article by Miki Turner on... The Solidarity Payments Plan That Might Have Been
According to Reich, the MLSPU threatened to sue any youth clubs who pursued either solidarity payments or training compensation, and both MLS and the USSF used that threat to explain why they couldn’t participate. The threat of a suit appears to have disappeared, though MLSPU’s aversion to both solidarity payments and training compensation has not. Reich said that he has an agreement with the MLSPU that the union will not sue to prevent obtaining solidarity or training compensation if a favorable ruling is obtained in the Crossfire case pending before FIFA. Further, Reich isn’t so sure that the introduction of these payments will actually make player movement more difficult, as the MLSPU fears.
This isn't accurate. Yedlin was on scholarship. And Tottenham's defense is they already paid MLS, and either way USSF record keeping was so screwy that they couldn't pay the solidarity payments even if they wanted to.
"The source told ESPN FC that Tottenham are pushing back on three fronts. Tottenham allege that Crossfire is not a "training club" since its business model -- that of a non-profit in which team fees of other players helped subsidise those who couldn't afford to pay like Yedlin -- doesn't involve investing its own resources and taking a financial risk in order to produce players. This is despite the fact that Crossfire has other sources of revenue including sponsorships and charitable donations." http://www.espn.com/soccer/tottenha...n-solidarity-payment-claim-for-deandre-yedlin