Well if you want to do days of freaking research yourself go ahead. He's another one (a pdf) rap-+-nike-coach-la-partnership-press-release-1.pdf https://share.google/fXccnFbpvxKopSkun "City of Los Angeles and Nike Team Up to Announce the Next Phase of Groundbreaking Youth Sports Coaching Initiative in the City The CoachLA Plan promotes inclusive coaching practices in parks and recreation centers throughout Los Angeles to establish coaching standards for youth sport" Investment across multiple sports, including soccer. The US is a federation. Most sports investment happens at local level.
Again, not at that level. That one program, scaled for population would be the equivalent of funding $680M worth of facilities.
LOL. The thing that will make up shit if it can't find it? Great. As for the Nike/LA thing you found ... where do you think the money for that came from?
It doesn't matter where the money comes from. The UK central government hands out grants, we rely on funding from private companies, individuals, local government agencies and non-profits. The was a revolution in 1776, since then we've done things differently.
I looked up NYCFC's Tayvon Gray's academy in The Bronx. $2,500 on average depending on age group. That's for a full year.
It depends. If that covers a paid coach and a 9 month season and 2 practices a week and a full slate of matches spring and fall…that seems like a bargain. If it’s dad coaches and two seasons of 8 matches each that are each 10 weeks long, then yeah, that’s expensive.
I'm involved in clubs in this area. Pretty standard "school year" practices 2-3 per week, 10-12 match seasons spring and fall plus 2-3 tournament weekends. Majority of our leagues are paid coaches, and some clubs offer scholarships / need-based discounts. It's not a terrible value, especially if you pick one of the teams within the club that doesn't drive more than an hour to games (none of my kids ever did). Still not a great deal vs a pro club's academy for free, but a good experience and I've known plenty of kids for whose parents it would have been a hardship to pay full price play and thrive.
well theres not only 3 dp spots on european teams (which inherently creates lopsided teams and rosters without depth) the 20th highest paid player in bayern munich would be a "DP" in MLS...every player on the field is quality not just 1 or 2 in nba nfl mls....the salary structures amongst a team is PYRAMID SHAPED...so in nba you have 1 or 2 stars making all the money...and everyone else is gunning to be one of those guys.....thats not how it is in euro soccer. in european soccer....theres less disparity between players on the same team in how much they are making.....so theres less internal competition between players....for money....since they all make good money and within the same general ballpark....and merely being on a good team guarantees a good salary in the millions.....of course theres some outliers...but the standard deviation in salaries is smaller in europe than american sports....and its not even close of course the players in europe are going for the money.....just like in MLS.....but i think the dynamic and way things work....is notably different...and furthermore, from a usmnt perspective, i think theres 2 types of usmnters...the guys who play for the badge and the guys who play to advance career and make more $....and i feel that for most european teams and south american teams its more about the badge than the $ (they get their money from club they dont need it from national team play....and they have a national PRIDE and identity that they feel honored to FIGHT FOR....whereas lately in the usa ....national pride and identity has become something to be ashamed of and disavow)......in terms of playing for national team....and i think this recent era of usmnt has become more about the $ than the badge.....these guys can say they really care but they just dont show it.....which is why poch is going for the mlsers, imo, bc they really care AND they can benefit big $wise too.....(but they arent good enough on the field to make it worth it)
It's a kind of promotion system in Europe for players too. We can't afford a "level playing field" system with 1 or 2 good to very good to star level players in a club. The number of clubs we have makes that "policy" impossible, because there simply arenot that many players available to get 2 in each club. Apart from other things that make it impossible. Hence players who show quality in lower clubs transfer to clubs with overall better quality players and keep doing so till they hit their ceiling or get into a too high level and subsequently "relegate" to a club more in line with their capabilities. The European system generates top quality players by putting them in ever demanding club environments and successively also in ever demanding UEFA competitions, from Conference League and Europa League to CL level.
While partially right you are mostly wrong, as usual. The elite Euro teams might have player #15 be a DP in MLS due to salary but that only applies to the elite. The rest not so much specially if we go off by salary alone. In MLS anyone making $1.8M (this year) is an automatic full blown DP that can't be bought down to TAM player, as per MLS rules, regardless of the transfer fee. If you are going to complain about MLS salary cap at least get it right. The thing killing MLS is that transfer fees are included to determine the cap hit on a player. You say players come to MLS for money. Does $1.8M a year sound like life changing money when you just claimed that teams in Europe pay more? Even if we up that to $2.5M a year, which is what I would guess is the average salary in a team like Liverpool, that is still not enough for anyone claiming they come to MLS for the life-changing money. This isn't the Saudi league. As per MLS, which make salaries public, last year 30 players (approximately one per team) made over $2.5M a year. Elite Euro teams pay ridiculously more than that to several players in one team but average still ranges in the $2M for the entire team meaning some players are making as much as the entire team. Just like MLS.
Players transfer (technically are bought) to better clubs because those clubs pay better. In your country, and Im just sticking to one specific league/country not other clubs/countries, every kid dreams of playing for PSV or Ajax. One, because they are the top clubs there and two, they pay better than everyone else. If they came knocking on my door while I was playing for Go Ahead Eagles, I'll leave in a heartbeat too. I know the pay and winning are better suited with those clubs than staying in Go Ahead Eagles. In MLS there isn't anything similar to that. Everything is about "parity", which honestly I hate. The ambitious teams are held back so the mediocre, or mismanaged or cheap teams can catch up one day. And that's even if they want to catch up cause some owners are content to just collect leaguewide revenue sharing. So no system is perfect. They both have flaws.
in europe theres a gigantic pyramid that everyone fits into as best they can in mls each club is its own little isolated pyramid, basically
It's called having more money than everyone else in your league. It's why the same clubs in each Euro league are always on the top, get the monetary benefits of competing in Continental tournaments and can buy better talent than everyone else. The rich just stay richer. Nothing wrong with that, IMO, but it must really suck if you are a fan of a team that will never win anything because it just can't compete financially and never will unless some billionaire or state buys them.
Yes, there seem to be a few owners that don't give two shits and are happy to collect their dividend check. However, those owners will eventually (and likely have been already recently) get consistently outvoted by the other owners on issues that might push them to do more.
The "gigantic pyramid everyone fits in" La Liga is the most competitive league in the world pic.twitter.com/t6R5tGjxzZ— Twilight (@the_marcoliboy) April 20, 2026 Those leagues definitely need to add play offs. It would at least make it more interesting.
Why? Teams can still spend more than other teams, but you won't get Real Madrid-sized clubs. I can't see a significant downside to this. So what if LAFC can't buy 10 Son Heung-Mins, cry me a river.
Up until recently San Jose was an example of one of the teams with a cheap owner and lack of vision. That drum was banged even louder when they let Josef Martinez, Chicho Arango, and Cristian Espinoza walk. Now they're one of the best teams in the league, and playing lots of domestic players, because they hired well. Meanwhile, Atlanta spends like a top 5 league team on attacking talent and are terrible. One of the reasons I like MLS is that the parity rewards teams who are smart, innovative, and make the most of their resources. Uncapped leagues just reward spending money. I'm all for MLS expanding the salary cap and increasing the DP options and ways to spend, but there needs to be some limitations on teams to make sure that intelligence is what's rewarded.
It's also not like uncapped leagues somehow avoid teams without ambition. How long was Newcastle considered a sleeping giant just because Mike Ashley only did enough to stay up? Ask a Man United fan if the Glazers or even Ineos is really trying to win or simply milk them? Heck, go talk to a Liverpool fan about the Red Sox guys. The only people who like the other style are either so entrenched in it that they can't criticize it or they are fans of big clubs and they like that their team is never bad* and are basically just bandwagoners who want to avoid the risk that they claim they love (i.e. relegation). I love that San Jose, Real Salt Lake and Colorado are all both good and interesting teams this year. That doesn't happen in the other model. Ever. You also don't see the Baby Bulls in NY in the other world, IMO, but that's more of a relegation thing. * except, you know, Man United fans