Denmark and Norway are Cat 2 at the highest level, while Croatia is a Cat 3. Full list is here: https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...sfer-of-players-categorisation-of-clubs-r.pdf
So a college grad who wants to sign his 1st pro contract for $50k in Norway could find that the club is balking at the $360k TC price tag. The player is almost better off signing in USL for a season, thereby being free of TC for the future.
Colleges and high schools don't accept (and probably aren't allowed to accept) training compensation as it would make their players professionals. So that reduces the costs somewhat. Until recently, most pay to play amateur clubs wouldn't ask for it either as they had no support from USSF.
You have to remember that most players are playing in club teams as well as school. A college player is in PDL or NPSL most summers. High school age players are often on club teams. I'm not sure how summer play counts in TC circles, but I was trying to make the cost on the high end.
Afaik they can ask the signing foreign club for the money, as long as they themselves are member of the ussf. They donot need support from the ussf, as it's an international transfer and the signing club is obliged by FIFA rules to pay.
Summer soccer leagues certainly occupy a strange niche. How they manage transfer windows, for one thing, is beyond me. It'd be kind of funny if, for all the sanctimony of some people in the NPSL, they were to be informed that they can't be sanctioned. But it'd be less funny for everyone else.
Are transfer windows even relevant for NPSL/L1? I would think that all of their players are only on contract through the season.
But most big pay to play academies are part of USSDA. The current MLS secondary window ends a day before the Premier League summer window, so that's not a problem. NASL operated a split season and that's probably the right strategy for USASA leagues, allowing them to play their apertura and clausura seasons with very different rosters.
Have you read the thread? Tottenham has paid the required fees for Yedlin. But Crossfire hasn't received any of the money because it passes through other hands along the way.
That has to be the SP part. TC is money that goes directly from contracting club to the dev. clubs, as it's unattached to the transfersum and has nothing to do with the transferring club ( SP=%of transfersum, TC=time related, spent at dev.clubs). If Tottenham did pay the TC to the mls too, the DRC's decision is incorrect. In that case they should have made the verdict Tottenham has a collectable bill for an unwarranted payment to mls and has to pay the TC to the rightful club(s).
Do we know that as a fact? (Maybe we do, I don’t know) but Tottenham has offered various reasons for not having to pay. If they actually paid, then why not just say?
Because they didn’t want to pay more. Basically the board ruled that most of the Spurs’ arguments didn’t matter and that Crossfire were due the money. However, the Spurs didn’t owe Crossfire any money because the solidarity payment was included in the transfer fee they paid to MLS. So, Crossfire essentially lost the battle (getting a cut of Yedlin’s fees from Tottenham), but won the war (they do qualify to get solidarity payments on future transfers).
Yes, the DRC ruled that Crossfire was entitled to the money but had sued the wrong defendants. There's nothing stopping Crossfire from joining the correct parties to the claim.