Quetion re: USSF and it's amateur status re: youth teams

I am not close to the USSF, nor am I a lawyer, nor am I an expert on the arcana of NCAA amateur status rules, or any other amateur status rules.

So, your eminently sensible idea may run afoul of some sub paragraph, sub clause, somwhere. Who knows?

I would bet the USSF gets a pass since it is a non-profit organization. Meanwhile, funding amateur programs through commercial endorsements is a time honored tradition in the NCAA -- see any shoe/uniform deal in a Division I college as evidence of that.

I think there are some pretty black and white rules. Sign with an agent? Amateur status over. Accept cash remuneration from a professional organization in your sport. Amateur status over.

Then you have the large expanse of gray in the lanscape.

Mom buys you a Hummer with an unsecured bank loan, pledging to pay said loan back via "future family earnings?" Hmmm...well, OK. Getting a couple pair of Under Armours from a local mall shop? Hey, kid, you're outta here!!!

I recall when Grabavoy went over on his abortive tryout with Bayern -- there was article in the Sun Times detailing how his parents went to the NCAA for guidance on how to do it so as to not to screw up his eligibility. Apparently, he had to pay his own way there, but the club could supply room and board. And he couldn't bring anything back with him -- clothes, etc. -- because they would be seen as remuneration.

Of course, all the youth national teamers probably have closets full of Nike stuff -- but then again its from the non-profit USSF.

Yep, it's all pretty strange.

 

It's not a problem for Division II. About the only thing that gets a kid in trouble is signing with an agent.

Running the $$ through USSF has been mentioned before. It shouldn't be a problem eligibility wise even for those interested in Division I.

The BIG problem is getting USSF to give up Bradenton $$ for MLS youth teams. There are still people in USSF that think MLS will collapse. And let's not put all our eggs in this basket thinking. The increase in numbers is overlooked.

But your hypthosis still maintains the flaw inherent in Bradenton. Why USSF are you considering a kid that may want to go to college? Thats what the Bradenton program has now. Kids in these programs need to make a decision. Pro or not.

If you think you can get a Stanford education and want it, and there is any doubt stay clean. An easy way to do this and utilize the guts of passing though money is to have a "pro or college" track for elite clubs, possibly at U16 where they can get a taste. Fees picked up by USSF. Then they make a decison. "Pro track" or "college". Under the former they would get the perks & training they need.

Thus if you want to try the pro route do it. You can always go back to school. Division II provides the necessary fallback for those that washout. IMHO

 

Sure it can be done. It's called the PDL. Look to their set-up for guidance.

The U18 player can't sign a pro contract.

If a player is with Dallas Burn U18's - with funding from the U.S. Soccer Foundation and MLS - and doesn't get paid, he will not lose his eligibility.

That would be my best guess.

See the kids with DC United's Super Y-League club. Didn't one of their players that was with the USNT U18's sign a letter of intent with Virginia? That the U18 team is affiliated with an MLS club could be irrelevant.

However, I do believe the kids with the DC United club have to pay to play as they do with all USYS/US Club Soccer/Super Y-League club teams.

What is being discussed here is the kids not paying, but U.S. Soccer, the U.S. Soccer Foundation, and MLS funding the whole kit-and-kaboodle.

I don't know if this - a professional club like DC United funding the training vs. the players funding their training - would make a difference.

Since Bradenton is in operation with U17's & U16's, my best guess would be an MLS U18 team could be run the same way (room, board, schooling), no matter where funding came from.

If he moves up during the season to play with the professional Dallas Burn in a game he will lose his eligibility. I'm not 100% certain about training, but I think they can train with the pros (see Grabavoy and Bayern Munich and "Memo" Gonzalez with LA Galaxy).

No professional can play with the "amateur" MLS U18 side either. An injured Chad Deering looking for a "reserve" type match couldn't get a game with the Dallas Burn U18's. This is why MLS teams don't "loan" players to PDL clubs (I had originally thought they could).

10 MLS Developmental squads are very doable, at any age for that matter: U20, U18, U17, U16, U15, etc.

You could even have an U25 team that is amateur and the players would still be eligible for NCAA DI play. What would be the point of that though?

 

I don't think setting up MLS youth squads with USSF dollars would be a violation of amatuer rules. The problem to me would seem to be player rights. If USSF is paying for it and the program is still under the auspices of the Fed then they wouldn't be able to bind a player to a professional club and still have that player retain his amatuer staus would they? If the club wasn't granted at least a right of first refusal I don't see why they would be that interested in investing their time and money in the scheme.

 

Exactly...

The problem wouldn't be with rights between MLS clubs as MLS can set up their player allocation rules however they wish. It would be from clubs from other countries/entities coming in and poaching players.

I still believe it would be a rare occasion, not to mention a monumental fucup on the part of MLS, when a youth player on a particular MLS club is good enough to gain interest abroad, is willing to go pro, and still either won't sign w/ MLS (with the club he's been playing on since he was 12) or isn't offered a contract by MLS.

Another point: If they want to go, fine.... When and if they fail overseas, you think MLS is gonna welcome them back with open arms?

 

I also don't think MLS would have a problem dispersing the youth team player(s) when they sign a professional contract.

The team doing the training could have first dibs on said player(s) they train. If the Club doesn't want a particular player(s), the player(s) enters the MLS SuperDraft (or a special draft). To me this would be the most fair, at least from the clubs perspective.

Or all the players from the ten MLS Academies sign MLS contracts and go through the MLS SuperDraft just like any other player.

Oh, if a player doesn't make it with an MLS or foreign club, he goes to college, with what I would assume a full ride scholarship. If the player washes out prior to turning 18, say at 13, he goes the typical club team route, and then will probably still end up with a scholarship.

FIFA has a new transfer regulation that makes "poaching" clubs pay a "developmental" transfer fee to any (and all) clubs that developed a player.

It is from the ages of 12 to 21 and applies to a player signing their first professional contract.

The fees aren't in the millions, but it beats a sharp stick in the eye. It is $40,000 per year of training for MLS clubs when a player is between 16-21 and $2,000 per year when he is 12-15.

Lets say Landon Donovan was in LA Galaxy's youth system (and not in Bradenton) from the age of 12 until, what, 16 when he signed with Bayer Leverkusen and had four years of training. Leverkusen would owe Galaxy $48,000 in development fees.

The one thing I've never clarified is how will this "developmental" fee be affected if Dallas Burn and U.S. Soccer are both developing the player. Yes, Dallas Burn are actually doing the developing, but U.S. Soccer (or the Foundation) are providing funding.

What about in the case of your typical club team (Bethesda Soccer Club) where the player pays for his training?

If a player is "poached" (basically decides to sign with a club abroad) and then decides to come back, I think if the player is good enough MLS will welcome him back with open arms. See Taylor Twellman and Phil Salyer (if he does sign). And to a certain extent Landon Donovan.

 

We're saying the exact same thing up to here...

Agreed...

And the NCAA doesn't give a crap about FIFA's rules. The moment MLS tries to go after these fees for anyone that played in their youth program, the NCAA eligibility for everyone in their program is jeopordized.

Other countries aren't worried about maintaining a players amatuer status....

Like it or not, this will remain a BIG deal in the US.

I am talking about after MLS has youth systems set up. I'll use your example.

Donovan's been playing in the Galaxy youth system since he was 12. The Galaxy scouted him, trained him, paid all his tournament and travel fees etc etc from that time on. At 16, Leverkusen sees him and offers him a 4 year $400k contract. MLS matches it...or offers a developmental contract. Donovan says..."see ya, I'm going to Leverkusen."

MLS can't try to get compensation w/o jeopordizing the eligibility of everyone else in their organization (And there isn't a parent in the US that is going to allow their kid to risk their NCAA eligibility at a young age). What they can do is say.."Shun us now, and you'll never play in this league."

When a player washes out in Europe, as hundreds of young players do, he's screwed here in the US.

 

Well actually, no the players will not be screwed here in the U.S.

Alex Yi played with Orange County Blue Star in the PDL this. UCLA then had 7 players participating in a summer league. The max allowed is 6.

Yi was still in effect enrolled at UCLA, but he decided to forego is NCAA amateur status.

It did not affect any of the UCLA player's amateur status.

I understand you're talking about compensation and OC Blue Star didn't get compensated or seek compensation when Yi signed for Antwerp.

The NCAA rules don't work that way. They work very similar to the Ohio High School rules where LaBron James is not considered an amateur, but his teammates still are.

I've never read an NCAA rule saying players will lose their amateur status if they play and train for an organization that itself seeks a profit.

I'm not saying one doesn't exist and you're incorrect. Keep that in mind.

The NCAA may be prehistoric in their thinking, but they don't punish everybody and their uncle when it comes to amateur status.

 

"MLS can't try to get compensation w/o jeopordizing the eligibility of everyone else in their organization (And there isn't a parent in the US that is going to allow their kid to risk their NCAA eligibility at a young age). What they can do is say.."Shun us now, and you'll never play in this league."

When a player washes out in Europe, as hundreds of young players do, he's screwed here in the US."

That just not true.

On what basis do you make statement #1

And for #2 US College coaches make annual treks to the UK for kids that washout. Hell SA even has articles about them.

 

USSF not = FIFA

seen these type of posts before and we seem still to forget that US law, and USSF policy, does not equal FIFA law, especially regarding development of youth players. There is no adoption of recent FIFA regulations concerning compensation for development. And each domestic FIFA governing body determines its own compensation standards- it is not universal.

Hopefully it will happen soon, as any decent youth development system requires financial incentives (currently none exist), but we have a much more complicated situation in US considering NCAA rules and regs; immature, underfinanced, and unique professional system (and more); and we have a much less sophisticated governing body- no offense to USSF, but it is reality.

 

I make the statement based on the fact that once a club implies that it is due compensation for one of its players merely because he has played in its youth ranks (who obviously hasn't signed a contract), this would immediately imply the same thing for all the other players in its ranks.

 

One thing to remember in this debate is that the NCAA isn't static in its thinking. Ultimately, the NCAA is driven by cash and that comes primarily from hoops. Thus, with the world of youth basketball changing, the NCAA is already looking to role with the punches and you will see it loosening and changing its eligibility rules.

It's a matter of time before the NBA recognizes that the European system of development - based, of course, on the soccer system - is more effective at developing players than the US one. I mean, as good as LeBron James is, how much better would he be had he been in a pro system since he was 16, playing with and against older players?

There's a reason so many European players are coming into the NBA now and getting drafted high. (After James, the next pick this year is expected to be a Yugo, and I don't mean the car.) Because they've been A) playing with and agains older players and B) because they've been in a system that emphasizes development and not winning, the players are more ready for the NBA than their American counterparts.

They're not better that US players, just more prepared because HS and AAU ball in the summer isn't the same as being in the system of Red Star Belgrade or Barcalaon or Benneton Treviso.

It is a matter of time before the NBA either starts its own youth system or you see young American hoopsters - again following the soccer lead - and going to Europe as teenagers to develop there istead of with their HS and club teams.

And once that happens, the NCAA will have to change because it can't lose so many players. The eligibility requirements will be loosened. This is all just a matter of time, likely the next 4-6 years and it will be accelerated if the US "dream team" continues to get its ass kicked in international competition.

These changes by the NCAA will have a positive impact on soccer because it will make it less risky, from a parent's perspective, to have a kid in a reserve team that is affiliated with a pro club and with more kids willing to be in a pro system, MLS will have one less reason not to start youth teams.

 

Actually, I think it's because they're in a system that emphasizes skills rather than dunking -- aka poster moves. So they come over here and they can all handle the ball well, shoot well, play defense well, etc.

But in general, you are right. I see the basketball system slowly evolving to the way that foreign soccer works and once the NCAA rules allow for this mechanism, we'll be able to do the same thing in soccer.

It seems to me that the NCAA simply needs to place some age restrictions and just let them play. How many 19 or 20 year olds who are good enough to play pro soccer are going to pass that up if they've been coming up those ranks. So if they wash out at 19 or 20 or 21, they should be eligible to move into the college ranks to get a degree -- perhaps up to a max age of 23. So a 21 year old pro washout could earn 2 years of college scholarship.

What would really be the harm in doing that. The vast majority of the kids are going to make that decision or have it made for them about 18 or 19 and would have full college eligibility left.

 

So what?

Where in NCAA regs do you find thatsuch action would impose pro status on these players. In certainly hasn't for euro players that come and play college ball in the US.

You over stretching