I agree that it would be a good thing if solidarity payments were allowed but how many clubs would actually benefit? The vast majority don't produce pro players and would still have to pay the bills somehow.
When and If solidarity payments happen, that kid from downstate Illinois might be a able to get a academy scholarship that isn't there right now. Clubs have no incentive to look for those players. They are concentrated where the easiest money is. With solidarity payments and a open pyramid, someone might even open new clubs in Springfield / Bloomington / Urbana knowing that producing one star player might set them up for awhile. BTW, nothing better on Thanksgiving Weekend than the IHSA state championship games. I watch them all especially those 1A-3A games.
I am not sure about Solidarity payments….quite frankly, it’s not very American or at least don’t seem to jive with our culture very well… On the surface, it looks like a kickback…it also seems to blatantly treat young amateur athletes as commodities…neither of those really mix well our values, imho…. We have tons of adults in more Americanized team sports, both professional and voluntaries, who help develop very good to even world class athletes without a single thought of being compensated at some future date for their efforts…not to be too mushy or idealistic about it, but they do it in large part “for the love of the game”…
unlike the NCAA, pro baseball or hockey I would rather have the free market determine who produced the best players through solidarity payments than marketing gimmicks and "MRL" status teams
I tend to watch at least the top two class state football finals in my state (Monday and Tuesday before Thanksgiving). An additional aside - isn't it a shame we dont have something similar for soccer? People tuning in to watch a state or maybe even club final?
I personally don’t think 12 year olds should be subject to the brutality and harshness that the “free market” can entail…nor do I think solidarity payments automatically creates a “free market” in the most rosy versions for such…
It would hasten a true split between those who want soccer as a "broader youth athletic activity" and "elite development". Pay to play would continue, like it does around the world, for those clubs/community organizations/city parks & rec groups that want to give kids an athletic activity. People that knew what they were doing would be producing elite players for professional teams. The clubs that right now focus on getting kids on to college teams would have some decisions to make...
Solidarity payments wouldn't happen on a 12 yr old though only when he signs his first pro contract and thereafter. However the kid might be playing for free at an academy where solidarity payments made it possible.
The thing is, this forum is loaded with entries because 12/10/8 year olds are being subjected to the harsh realities of the free market by people who only think they are participating in it.. "My DC got cut at 10 because the coach picked a new board member's DC/should we only be playing 10 minutes of a 50 minute game at 9/my DC coach has them doing all X at practice, shouldn't they be doing Y and Z". It might help us achieve "as many as possible, as long as possible, in the most appropriate environment possible."
Regarding the bolded... is that necessarily a good idea? My hometown club would definitely be regarded as "middle tier". But a LOT of younger players go through there. The teams just sort of fall apart when they get to 11v11 there's just not enough bodies (the good ones move on to better clubs). So, with solidarity payments (if I read the link right), the clubs that trained a player from U13 to U21(?) would get a kickback from whatever team gets the player. But the clubs who trained the kids from age 5 to 11 get nothing? Sorry, doesn't make sense to me. Those starter clubs have a lot to do with teaching basics and instilling a love of the game. You would also end up (IMO) with the "have's" and the "have nots". Some clubs would definitely benefit from the solidarity payments. But others would never see a dime. Should those clubs just fold?
I agree. I just don't know where that subsidy would come from. VERY good question. I'd like to know where our funds go. I'm going to be totally honest, I've thought about asking, but don't want to cause an issue for my child. I don't know that there would be fallout, but I'm nervous about asking. The problem is more kids = more coaches needed also. You can have too many kids as well as not enough. Let's take an 11v11 team. I would think a standard team size would be 18 to 20. OK, now lets say you have 25 kids try out. What do you do? Keep them all on the team (cutting down playing time for everyone)? Cut some? Well, in theory, the underprivileged would go to tryouts, submit whatever paperwork, and apply for a scholarship. I think the reason other sports have cheaper alternatives is you don't have to travel as far. Are there "travel" football teams that play in their region (trips regularly 2-3 hours one way)? Basketball does travel, but I don't know how far they need to go. It seems there's good teams within 30 minutes to an hour radius.
Let me define middle tier clubs in my eye and my area. Clubs that have not produced anything but bills for parents. They exist because parents bought into a marketing pitch and a foreign accent.. Their better players always leave when they realize this.
When I managed/coached in a parent coach travel club, the bare bones minimum was like $900. IWSL league 18 games 2 Tournaments Winter League and training field rental Referees and ARs
I get what you're saying and I'm for anything that could potentially lessen the cost and give access to more players, but if these clubs go away the players still need somewhere to play. I like the idea of creating an incentive for high end clubs to produce better players, but I don't know how far those benefits really trickle down when you factor in geographic limitations. A scholarship to an academy is great, but not that useful if it's located 3 hours away.
When you say they've "not produced anything", what do you want them to produce? IMO, what I'm looking for a club to "produce" is to teach my kids how to play the game. From footskills, to strategy, to teamwork, to positional knowledge. I want them to be competitive (don't always enter in events that get your tail kicked), which doesn't necessarily mean "always win". Middle tier clubs in MY eye are necessary for middle skilled players. Where do they go if you do away with the clubs?
I don't think anybody is looking to do away with the clubs. I think the goal is to have kids that are really driven to be elite to be in professional environments with the goal that they will eventually play for the clubs adult 1st team, or be sold to another club once thy reach 18. Getting a scholarship for college is the "fall back"/"failure" option for thse clubs. The kids who only touch a ball at practice - if that's 2x a week with their community team, or 4x a week because right now their parents are paying 5K/yr and the club mandates 3 practices plus a skills session - would be in more reasonably priced clubs. Teams with these "hobby" players would stay local, so the craziness of aking your kid out of HS to go across the country to play in a tournament where the chance of seeing more than 5 passes strung together is about the same as hitting the lotto (I'm looking at you recently livestreamed national league...) goes away. Playing in HS is most of these kids peak, with some level of college ball being doable and the infrequent D1 scholarship the stretch goal. I said this recenly on a local reddit, someone was asking if their 8yo should play community travel or club next year at u9: You can go to youtube and see the club teams play. You can even see some instances where the local indoor facility has club teams play community teams. See if the quality of the club teams is 10x better than the community teams. If you think so, by all means pay 2K/yr vs $200/yr.
That actually brings up another point. How many clubs actually have adult teams? I don't think either of the two I'm involved with (one with DS, one with DD) do, and they're two of the largest in the state. Now, what if every STATE has an adult team (men and women)? Do away with MLS. It's now a state thing. Those players are professional (ie: playing is how they make a living). Then if Texas wants to buy a player from Oklahoma, go for it. Your "home grown" players are those who played youth ball in that state. You retain your four regions, add two teams (Puerto Rico & ??), so you have 52 teams. 13 teams/region, play home & away in a season. That's 26 games. Top 4 teams from each region go to a playoff. A side note is that makes ODP more relevant. IMO, the problem with the DA's/ECNL is they aren't always in a geographic area to help. Just a crazy idea, but crazy enough to work?
Perhaps my experience is unusual, but I talk with plenty of parents (frankly, I AM one of those parents) who know their kids aren't getting college scholarships but find the club soccer experience worthwhile anyway. Our club director does have an awesome accent, but that's not why the parents are there. (In other words, you're right.)
I can only speak from my viewpoint of the local girls clubs in the area, the middle tier clubs are just as expensive or more expensive than clubs that constantly produce college scholarships. These clubs get the parents to buy into "MRL" team when that team is playing the bottom rung of MRL. And parents don't want their kid to plat on the 2nd team of a club even though it might be better for them.
That's being short sighted on the part of the parents IMO. I know parents in my area who would rather drive their child 90 minutes one way instead of 30 because their child didn't make the 1st team of the closer club. I don't think anything you list is bad (or unusual in life, much less soccer) on the part of the "middle tier" club. Saying they're in the MRL is accurate. Charging higher rates is up to them. It's up to parents if they want to pay the money. Anyone choosing a club solely because of a better chance of getting their child a scholarship is not choosing a club for the right reasons IMO. Is that the fault of the club?
My perspective is p2p has become a convenient conversation piece that fits a larger narrative but haven't seen examples of it creating the outcomes often attributed. Whether it is the top .01% or not, if kids want to play soccer they can play for rec fees or on school teams that can often be free. If they want to play at higher levels there is an expectation of skill and a commitment that goes well beyond money. If a player has the skill and the family has the commitment, it is my experience the funding is available from every club I've been associated with or heard about. If a player on a rec team, middle school team or HS team shows ability, somebody will find them and they will be invited to a tryout or something. If the coach/club perceives they are capable, in my 15+ years of experience with multiple kids, clubs and states, money will not be the reason they don't play. Is it possible a great soccer player could be sitting in Montana miles away from a good club? That is possible, but then we are talking about a different .01%. On every team I can recall we had at least one player who was getting assistance from the club and the other families provided support like rides, letting them share a room on the road or paying for incidentals. That would indicate there are thousands of kids getting that opportunity. (tens of thousands?) So, my question is what are people saying p2p prevents? Large-scale participation? Even rec leagues allow for families to play for free and there has to be some money to pay for shirts, fields etc. Ascension into the more competitive levels? I've not run into a club/team yet that said "we'd rather not have capable player because we don't want to help them financially". I've seen the opposite, if a player is good enough somebody will find the resources. A winning national team? I don't think we have 22 more capable players sitting home because nobody would let them play soccer. MLS DA clubs provide full funding for players, so do colleges, Is it expensive to play at the highest levels? Yes, we have a large country and getting kids to higher and higher levels of competition is expensive. Less competition won't help the soccer so unless somebody is suggesting a national soccer tax how does one fund the effort in our current climate of sponsorship etc?
You've made some very good points, but in answer to this question I'd argue that it prevents long-term development, as p2p is necessarily marketed to parents who will be more impressed by results (trophies, tournament wins, etc) at a young age rather than development. So it exacerbates the tendency to focus on kids with a bit of an edge in terms of physical development and perhaps a bit more natural combativeness at the expense of developing a broader pool of young players and waiting until puberty to sort them out.
Pay-to-play is prevalent in a lot of other sports, too. Year-round travel baseball seems to be have become the rule in the part of the Midwest where I live, and those who don't play it fall far behind, to the point they struggle to make high school teams. AAU basketball is high-cost for those who can pay ( http://bit.ly/2AVx4Ub ) and, by reputation, an ethical minefield populated by sketchy people looking to make a buck when player X turns pro for those who can't. Football is such an outlier -- primarily a U.S. sport, so there really is no other model to compare to; who knows if it could be done better. I'd be curious to hear from hockey parents about whether there's an alternative there for people who can't afford high-cost youth sports. Based on the hockey families we know, the commitment and costs look pretty high. Soccer clubs like my son's would likely whither and die without pay to play. We're in a market of about 150k people, two hours from the nearest major city. The club is unlikely to ever develop pros on a level to make solidarity payments a meaningful alternative (we have one male pro in low-level Euopean league now, and I think he left us for a bigger youth club in Chicago at a relatively young age, and one player in NWSL). And I don't know of another way to finance it. I'd also argue that the costs (to a point -- my son's club would not be considered high-cost by most soccer parents, I suspect) are worth it. More than half of our club's cost is pay for coaches, and most are worth it. We've done low-cost parent-coach (I was one of the coaches) and it was fine at young ages. But the coaching my son gets from his current coaches is so far beyond what most parent-coaching offers that they don't compare. There's a parent-coached club in a nearby town that my son's teams have played indoors and occasionally outdoors for years. At u10, the players were comparable. At u13, they no longer are. The other club can't stay on the field with my son and his teammates. But I get the concern. The barriers to people who can't afford it are beyond financial. My son's club has scholarship players, but there are kids here who would benefit who we can't get into the club. I suspect many families don't want to take "handouts" from a club where most families can afford to pay (and may not feel entirely comfortable knowing they'd be the exceptions). I've thought about that last part a lot lately. My son's club set up European trips for his team and another older team that we can't afford (and the timeline is just too short to realistically fund-raise the costs). My son will be one of a very few players from those two teams who won't go, and I'm very curious about whether this will change the dynamic among players and families (it's certainly given me a little insight into what it must be like to come into the club as a family that can't afford all of the expenses involved -- for us the expected just drastically ratcheted up).