Hi fellow coaches, I just received a memo from my state's youth soccer association (Maryland). Here it is: "The Maryland State Youth Soccer Association is devoted to preserving the safety of kids involved in their soccer programs. Although criminal background checks are important, it is only but one way to protect and secure an atmosphere where participation in youth sports can help players develop physically, socially and emotionally. As it has been determined that the practice of identifying players publicly may place players in jeopardy, the Board of Directors recommends that the placing of names on player jerseys U17 and below be avoided." I'd just like your opinion on names on the back of jerseys. Personally, I don't have a problem with it. I think the kids like them as they make the uniforms more personal and haven't had any problems (nor have I heard about any problems). Just curious to hear other coaches ideas. Thanks.
At the ODP tournament in Rider this past summer, an unknown man was spotted on the side of the field trying to engage a 13yo goalkeeper in a conversation. No one knew who he was. I don't even want to think about what could have happened if it were a local tournament and the girl had her last name on the back of the jersey. There's not enough of a reason for kids to have their names on the jerseys.
What a silly conclusion. And an equally silly recommendation. Kids in the USA are at risk from two classes of people: those that know them personally and those who do not care who the kid is. Neither group requires a name on the back of a jersey to further their purposes. (In the USA kidnapping of rich kids for ransom is non-existent. Kids are taken for other reasons, i.e., abduction by a divorced parent who lost a child custody fight.) No doubt somebody at the association thinks that the message will lower the association's liability insurance rates. I can't think of any other reason for such a statement. A better practice would be to prohibit clubs from REQUIRING kids to have their names on their jerseys.
I was at a regional meeting last summer where a risk specialist indicated that not placing names on kits was a best practice. Of course in reality, your statement does make a lot of sense, though a stalker/predator learning a kids name does make it easier if that is who they decide upon a target If your job is to find ways to manage risk or determine worst-case scenarios, these are the conclusions you will reach. Same with Eastern New York's decision last spring to do away with post-game team lineup handshakes in light of the H1N1 flu.
I agree 100% with your post. I don't see that it causes any issues - a person could easily learn the child's first name by simply standing on the sidelines and listening to the coach/parents/other kids. Pretty soon, a person paying minimal attention would know many of the kids names. I also think this goes to the same issue with regards as to how 'authorities' deal with issues. They just assume parents haven't discussed these items with their kids and they will just go with anyone who may call them by name. I also agree that clubs should NOT require kids to have names on their shirts.
This has nothing to do with "first" names. And, you can't learn last names by just "hanging around" practice.
I would actually think it would be worse to learn a child's first name as it is more familiar to them and conveys a closer knowledge. Please let me know how you think a last name would make it easier to talk to a child. I didn't mean to learn names by hanging around practice; I said going to games. First, someone on the sidelines of a game will not normally cause any alarm or suspicion if that person simply stood there and watched. My point is that if any person pays attention, they will hear parents, players, and coaches call to players by name. My point to all this is that it seems fairly easy to learn players names if you wanted to do so and the names on the back of the shirt don't really make it that much easier.
I can see both sides of this issue. My kids when they were younger (u5-u6) were very excited when we put their names on the back of their jersey. No question it made them feel more a part of the team and they wore the uniform with pride. Now that they are older and have played a few seasons I don't think they would care if the name was on the uniform or not. I can also see how having the names there would make it easier for a predator to abduct a child. Knowing the first name would allow someone to address the kid by name and knowing the last name may make it possible to determine where they live. Not knowing the psychology of a predator I have no idea if it would ever make a real world difference, but why not err on the side of caution. I have always left the decision to put the names on the uniforms up to the parents and most choose to do so. I think most that don't just don't want to be bothered with the effort or expense, as nominal as it is. I'm curious if there was a specific incident in Maryland that led to this decision.
If I knew the child's first name and then saw the last name on the jersey I could find out a ton of stuff. First, many kids take on a parent's first name. I, also, have a pretty good idea what area they are from by knowing the club they play for. Using google I could do a search and find out the spouse's name, the address, phone number, where they work, and the most likely school the child attends. I could find out if that school as after school care. If I knew both parents work I could call the kid at a time I know the parents aren't home. With all that information it would be easy to get the kid to drop his/her defenses. Do I think there are people out there who do all of the above? Nope.
There are probably people who do all of the above. "Predators" have a long, detailed acclimation process that they go through in order to abuse a victim. It's a lot longer and more involved than people would ever imagine. I've had the displeasure of studying some of this stuff, and it is disturbing. Why are last names more important than first names? A last name allows you to find out where a kid lives and goes to school. First names are harmless compared to last names. They don't want last names on the jerseys, so people don't try to find the kids at home or school. This is a "no-brainer". There's no added benefit to having _any name_ on a jersey _at all_. Hell, even high level college teams don't bother with names. Most high school teams don't have names on jerseys. Why should a club assume the added risk associated with names if there is nothing to gain from them?
Highly unlikely using google. There are other ways of locating people, but I am not going to discuss them. The real danger to kids is not some stranger stalking them. That is so unlikely compared to the number of abused kids.
In any event, the statistic of 3,000 - 5,000 abductions by strangers each year should give rise to some caution.
During 2007 in the USA there were (according to official statistics) child abuse reports involving 5.8 million children. It is widely accepted that actual abuse rates are greater than the number of cases reported. Parents need to be concerned about protecting their kids from more than just strangers with candy. I would be very surprised to see any statistically significant connection between soccer teams and abductions by strangers. For the younger kids the number of parents watching practices and games is high in my experience. Not the kind of environment a criminal looks for.
I think you're making a dangerous assumption that abuser are "criminals" that operate in dark alleys - which is not the case. You're not going to find any "statistically significant connection" either. There are 3-5k abductions by "strangers" every year. So, the percentage of victims in relation to population is very low. I find it funny that it matters so much to you to have the right to put a last name on a jersey that you'd make presumptive statements about criminal behavior and the statistical likelihood that a kid might be kidnapped and abused.
I don't care about names on jerseys. I care about kids. The general public is very blind when it comes to child abuse and crime prevention in general. Most private actions are motivated by a desire to avoid liability rather than to prevent harm. Its just human nature at work. As for whatever "assumptions" I have (which I am not discussing), I actually have four years of experience working in that area, so I prefer to think of them as educated guesses.
But, isn't this what we're discussing? I mean either you care that they won't let kids put their last names on jerseys or you don't. Everything else you've discussed (i.e. liability issues, insurance rates) seems more appropriate for a different forum/thread.
Yes our views about putting names on jerseys is the topic we are discussing, rather than whatever assumptions I have made.
I agree 100% with this. I think you missed the end of my question. I understand completely how someone could use a last name to determine the info you listed. I was responding to an earlier post of yours where you mentioned a person talking to a GK. I asked how a last name made it easier to talk to that child. As an aside, most high school teams reuse uniforms from season to season, so names aren't appropriate - I know this doesn't affect your reasoning, just some FYI. I don't see it as a "no-brainer". There is no added 'benefit' to having nice, new uniforms either, but the kids love them. There's no 'benefit' from having articles in the local papers about the team, complete with a picture and names, but the kids love them. I don't think that kids should be forced to have names on their shirts, but if their parents and they want to, I don't see that the possible 'harm' is that much more likely vs a kid with no name on the shirt. If your child was on my team, he/she could have their name, nick-name, "I Love BigSoccer", "HeHateMe", or nothing on the back - your choice.
This seems like a silly rule that will do nothing to prevent any harm to any child. Parents are the ones who should be making these decisions; not some soccer bureaucrat.
Since non-soccer people aren't scrambling to get these "powerful bureaucratic positions", I'm pretty sure the people who made this decision are indeed soccer parents.
Who said anything about "powerful" soccer bureacrats? Bureacrats come in all sorts of flavors--the petty ones being most common. In the future, I'd kindly ask not to be misquoted. Thanks. I think you also missed (ignored?) my point. It should be the parents of the child at issue, not some soccer bureaucrat (powerful, petty, or otherwise) and regardless of whether the soccer bureaucrat is also a parent of one or more children who have ever played soccer.
Wow, what a silly thing to concentrate on. Last names on jerseys is not a big deal, period. If someone wants to abduct your kid, they'll find a way to do it. A last name on the jersey will NOT aide him in any way. If he wants your last name, he'll get it. This is the most paranoid garbage I've heard in a long time and just one more reason American kids have a long way to go in the soccer world. Do you honestly think other countries worry about such nonsense? So many silly worries in American soccer. I think it comes down to regulators justifying their jobs. The ONLY reason a youth team should forgo names on the back is to concentrate on the team mentality and not the individual ego.
While I agree overall that the last name on a uniform isn't that big of an idea, I fail to see how this is a reason kids in America have "a long wat to go in the soccer world". The question I asked sprang from a suggestion from my state soccer organization. I don't think any coaches/players are spending hours and hours on this issue and foregoing training. Yes, the US trails most of the world in producing top notch soccer players. Discussing the issue of names on the uniforms has absolutely NOTHING to do with that. What is the BigSoccer policy on collecting for new key-boards from mods, seeing that half my diet-pepsi ended up on mine after that comment!!