Increasing participation of economically well off players from a low base and increasing the talent pool in the sport by reaching players of lower incomes are different things. Lacrosse is a very expensive sport and I'm not aware of any great push to bring the sport to lower income city kids. But I sure do see a lot of goals on fields of private schools and well off school districts.
I know many a soccer coach that will say the same. One of the difficult challenges for parents of truly athletic kids is finding a good coach that is willing to accept a kid without that sport being a full-time, year round top priority. The reason is the while more hours at a young age in most cases is detrimental to the kid, the increased contact time in the sport is very beneficial to the coaches checking account.
Case is going to the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Other clubs are pushing for similar action. http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/201...er-mls-youth-training-compensation-solidarity
This. If your kid is a skilled at athletics or anything else, remember that their best interests may not align with that of their instructor.
Did we ever establish whether Yedlin had to pay to play or not? I am not a lawyer, but if his family paid, it makes no sense that they now would be owed compensation. That's a little too slavery-esque for my tastes. Bird seems more interested in stirring the pot and creating click bait than in reporting. It's a shame because it's clear he is close to Crossfire. You'd think he could get tot the truth if he wanted to.
It doesn't matter in this case because the club is going after Solidarity Payments rather than Training Compensation. For Solidarity Payments, FIFA mandates 5% of the transfer fee be paid to the player's youth clubs any time he transfers between federations. The money was paid by Tottenham and it went to MLS. The payment exists, so they are pushing to get their piece of the action. Clubs are more interested in this money (especially if it was paid directly to MLS or USSF) because Training Compensation requires USSF set up a system for determining costs and that isn't in place yet.
Solidarity payments do not discuss *cost* at all. That is all covered under the Training Compensation section, with a whole section in Annex 4 of FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. There is zero discussion of costs in Annex 5 on Solidarity Mechanisms. It's just a chart of what clubs get what percentage of the payment. If you have some further evidence, please share.
My emphasis. If the Yedlins paid for it, the club didn't contribute, they got contributed to. Page 27 http://resources.fifa.com/mm/docume...tusandtransferofplayersapril2015e_neutral.pdf Go to page 62 of this http://resources.fifa.com/mm/docume...n/51/56/07/transfer_commentary_06_en_1843.pdf If the Yedlins were paying, he wasn't an amateur, he was a customer. Say what you want about FIFA, the rules follow logic. By what logic can a club charge a guy to play and then collect on him? Look, it's possible you're right. I'm not 100% sure you're wrong or anything. But during Freddygate back in 2003 and 2004 I read the shit out of those regulations, and the rules are written assuming all players covered are under the organized, professional soccer umbrella. So far as I know, this is a precedent setting case. It makes you wonder why the Dallas Texans never tried to collect on Clint, or Jozy's clubs on his sales, or why Gallagher didn't try to collect on Tim Ream. There have been dozens of sales of US players. It would be weird if youth clubs had a shot at money and they ALL passed it up. That's why my assumption is that pay-to-play waives the right to solidarity payments and training compensation. To me, the most logical explanation would be that the club is bringing it up because Deandre, in fact, never had to pay. But Bird's journalism on this story has been sensationalistic in my view. He's trying to stir the pot and get hits, not inform his readers. So maybe the club is just taking a shot in the dark or something.
Well, mostly USSF has told them it can't happen in the past, but those clubs are lining up now. FIFA is very literal in its interpretation of its rules, though the rules are biased toward a traditional club set-up. We'll have to see as the rules on solidarity say nothing about costs (even the rules on training compensation say nothing about the cost to the developing organization). One thing that I was wrong about -- training compensation is based on the cost of the *buying* organization. Meaning American clubs signing a Jamaican club would pay them the cost of developing a US-equivalent player. Actual costs don't really enter into the equation. Here's the 2014 FIFA chart on actual training costs owed: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/aff...tionofclubsandregistrationperiods_neutral.pdf It looks like $40k is the most that a CONCACAF club will pay in total training costs (I don't think it's an annual number thought it's not clear). It's understandable that solidarity payments are a much more lucrative
The FIFA numbers are multiplied by the number of seasons a player spent at your club; however, seasons from the 12th to 15th birthdays are only compensated at the rate for category IV clubs.
A pow-wow is now scheduled: http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/201...th-clubs-compensation-solidarity-fifa-meeting
"parents must sign a memorandum of understanding that should players move abroad, the Whitecaps will collect solidarity payments."— Griller Monsoon (@Russcher) August 27, 2015
Yeah, Canada is different. The CSA allows pay for play youth teams to collect fees... http://www.canadiansoccernews.com/i...received-training-fees-for-doneil-henry-r5397 This isn't a MLS issue, it is a USSF issue.
New article from cnnsi. Apparently there is a meeting schedule by USSF and youth clubs. Article also touches on Canadians clubs getting payments. USSF is really ducking youth clubs around IMO, more incentive for youth clubs to actually develop players instead of chasing trophies is a good thing. http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/201...th-clubs-compensation-solidarity-fifa-meeting
Ideally I think if the player\players family is paying fees the club should forgo any type of future compensation because family already compensated the club for their training. I'm all for youth clubs getting compensated for Scholarship players. We should be giving non-pro clubs incentive to develop players who would not normally be able to afford DA fees. This is completely from the perspective of someone who just wants the U.S. to win a World Cup, and sees MLS continual improvement as the key to make that happen. This isn't rooted in any sort of reality.
I'm pretty sure that's where this is going. USSF and MLS will pass on solidarity and training payments only if there is no pay to play component involving the player. That would be a huge incentive for the clubs to identify talent (regardless of birthday) earlier and give those players coaching and development geared towards the players future and not necessarily the club's immediate success. Basically you can have the clubs play the lottery. You can milk the parents for steady revenue - and likely dole out resources and playing time based on keeping that cash flow going - and give up the possible future big payout for the odd star player you develop. Or you can try to get into the business of talent identification and fostering on your own dime (while still doing pay to play for the non-prospects) and hopefully pull in revenues based on your own success at developing future pros. And having it be non-gender specific will matter more in the future as the Lindsey Horans become more and more common.
The question will be if MLS be offering a significant amount of cash for players they take from a youth club and base the payout on the age / (years at club) in which they are "poached".
There's not really any money in women's transfers though. Even FIFA said the rules on this don't apply to the women. Horan *might* be making what an MLS 1st rounder might earn.
Well, part of the discussion was USSF shifting some training compensation to players making the (men's and women's) National Team, where there is some money.
I believe her initial offer from PSG was for $250k to get her to not report to UNC. And while FIFA's laws might not apply to women, their application in the United States might need to be gender neutral for Title IX or other reasons.
Hence the Title IX bit. If USSF starts reimbursing for male players but not female players in a similar situation, that opens up a can of works.