Curious if any of you have a take on the Moultrie case and the NWSL age rule. Same Moultrie who committed to UNC at like age 13 and then signed with Nike! Heard some comments on a podcast about how the NWSL is defending the age limit. The article below cites more of a labor issue that should be negotiated but some of the arguments made by the NWSL lawyers are, lets say, interesting. Talking about child welfare and protecting kids from exploitation. Look up these 2 names, and check their highlights if you're curious. One of these guys is 2022 HS Grad! Why do they get to start their pro careers but not Moultrie? The NWSL being too lazy or forgetful to have negotiated an age policy in the CBA is a weak argument, imho. https://www.mlssoccer.com/players/caden-clark/ https://www.sjearthquakes.com/players/cade-cowell Some of the pro players have come out to support Moultrie playing. Ofcourse Horan is one of them! I'm curious how the top P5 coaches feel about this? The 'direct to pros' route has not been much of an issue for them until maybe now. I mean Cirovski at UMD is trying to change the entire structure of college mens soccer to keep college ball attractive to these elite players. (the full year "21st Century model" is another thread perhaps) Interesting.... https://bleacherreport.com/articles...s-lawsuit-against-nwsl-over-leagues-age-limit
I've seen her practice with the Thorns. Sorry, she's not there yet at 15. Going against grown-ups in the pros is a different game. This is her parents trying to cash in on their "investment."
I think the age minimum is wisdom. It both protects the kid AND the level of the league. We see them in the nfl mlb etc so this isn’t some one off by the NWSL. And even the Thorns staff don’t think she’s ready so I’m confused as to why the family feels like they have a case. A league can set their own rules. And the coaches have told her she’s not ready. Kinda a confusing move tbh.
Is the objective to be the best soccer player or to cash in on 15 mins of fame? Whatever your opinion on that will dictate how you feel about it. Nike has set precedence for making certain girls very wealthy in spite of no obvious on-field reason why they are elevated over others. Aty times, i feel WoSo gravitates to much to the "story" off the field as opposed to focusing more on who is good at the game. This is another example. Its mind blowing to me that very few people have an opinion on how good she is and yet she probably makes more from soccer than most non NT NWSL players.
I won't comment on Moultrie specifically, as I really don't know enough about her situation. I will, however, say that I think allowing younger kids to join the NWSL early is good for the sport in the long-term. I don't believe the NWSL will suddenly be inundated with high-level, young talent so that the older players should fear losing their spot; there is something to be said about 'experience'. However, the positive from such a move is that 'generational' talents would have an avenue to develop quicker. As much as I like college woso, I feel that the substitution rules (among other things) really hamstring player development for kids that want to play in the pros.
Eddie K, the NWSL does not have a CBA. They recently have started negotiations with the players association for an agreement, but it will be the first one.
I knew someone was going to make a comment around these lines, that's why I specifically stated, "for kids that want to go pro". I realize that the current NCAA rules mostly benefit the vast number of student-athletes who will never go pro. My comments were very narrow in scope and not meant to criticize the NCAA rules as a whole.
When the money in the US game reaches a level that creates an incentive for actual talent identification and player development, it will happen. Until then, it will just be about cases like this. There is no development pathway for younger kids via pro teams because there is no demand. Moultrie is pushing the envelope because she has no economic risk - can afford to play for 20k, Underwritten by NIke and parents etc. There are more talented players than Moultrie at this stage who cannot take the same route because they cant afford to and the NWSL cant afford to to pay them while they develop. Heck where do they develop? Who do they play? WHo do they train with?
"I realize that the current NCAA rules mostly benefit the vast number of student-athletes who will never go pro." How so?
Hence my focus on 'generational' talent. I did not want to open an entire discussion about bypassing college soccer.
FIFA rules are 16 and 15 if a parent is living with them. For those few elite players the NWSL needs to rethink what they are doing. All around the world elite players are playing pro between 16 - 18 yo. An elite player is not going to develop playing with players there own age. Better to be in a professional environment. I personally think 17/18 is the perfect age for female elite players to go pro.
Just saw this in the Norway woso thread: LSK's goalscorer Christensen is only 16 years old (b. Nov 2004). She has fought her way into the starting line-up in the last few games in an attacking midfield role. She set up Haavi's goal against Rosenborg on Wednesday with a quality assist and now scored against the champions. One to keep an eye on for future games.
No, they keep making sense, unless you want to change soccer (football for us in Europe) into something completely different in the direction of having much more goals scored and of having atheticism play an even bigger role. If you aim at making it more and more of a show, instead of a sport, that's the way, of course, but don't think that everyone is on your same boat.
Most women's leagues around the world allow young players: 16 yo and occasionally even younger. Of course there are very few of them making the Division 1 teams: we're talking about crystal clear talent, not your average soccer player. But every league have or had a sparse few of them: NWSL is an exception compared to the rest of the world, in that sense.
I was not referring to Moultrie, but posing a hypothetical. Unless your post was rhetorical, in which case I would ask you to simply make your point. If your question was serious, then I would say good scouts (and coaches) are the evaluators of generational talent.
To be clear, the vast majority of D1 athletes will not play professionally after they've graduated. The big one is the substitution rule, which allows more athletes to get some game time. If the NCAA followed FIFA rules, coaches would only play their top lineups in every match. There would be a lot more 'bench warmers'. The NCAA 'sub' rule also affects other aspects of the game, including style-of-play and value of 'skills'. For example, speed, rather than ball-handling, is more valued in a lot of programs.
What's also different about college soccer is that the season in short and the teams play 2 games a week. There is a short spring season, but really this is not an ideal environment for a player that wants to go to the next level. At the end of the day the US is very lucky because college soccer creates a large player pool for the NWSL and national team. Is it the best environment for elite players - probably not. And is the US team missing out on 1 or 2 really, really, really good young players that college wasn't for them and they now have no where to play or they got lost in juco - most likely.
The game is the determinant of generational talent. I have no issue with allowing players of any age, male of female, to play professionally. My concern is that in the USA, there are no professional pathways at that age that allow the game to determine talent. Youtube videos dribbling around cones, games vs much weaker players, hype and rankings dont tell you who is good. Playing and training with equivalent talent may. The comparisons to Adu are not good because he showed he was capable on many levels BEFORE he became a pro. Whether he succeeded or not is not relevant. Build a pathway that allows the game to tell you who is good.