We write about them under the mistaken assumption that the "biggest kids" must be the "best American athletes." That's the way it seems to those of us who grew up with football and basketball and not much else, and thread after thread at BigSoccer will testify to how hard it is for us to make the paradigm shift to soccer.
Its an interesting theory, I do know a lot of people, and friends who have said "I used to play soccer when I was little" Its a shame so many give it up.
I think Soccer may be losing some great athletes that are late puberty kids not just the biggest kids. Soccer becomes intensly competitive early on, more so than Football and I don't see basketball being AS organized as competitive Soccer in the early years. I may be wrong about that basing it on what I have only seen. In being so competitive before kids become mature athletes, I wonder how many kids we lose because of their perceived lack of success in the sport. Like I said earlier, the early maturers and little quick kids enjoy the bulk of the praise through the early years 8-14 y/o. If you read the Youth Soccer curriculums of France, England, Spain etc, the emphasis of not caring about results and just caring about skills development is for that very reason. Most often you can't tell who will be the best in those early years till the kids are done with most of the growth spurts/development. U.S. Soccer is not doing a good job in this area.
So my young'un can play baseball or football and not only learn skills but have fun winning a game, or he can do repetitive soccer drills until he is 14? I'm being facetious - it's why the small sided game concept is a good one since it negates much of the size/quickness issue early on.
Lot's of 15 year olds quit because they have no interest in doing the running required to keep up. The marginal runners go sit on the bench in gridiron football or become a squad player in lacrosse. They may have had decent soccer skills and a good game understanding, but if you can't run, and run quickly for 80-90 mins., and don't want to try and get to that level of fitness, it's time to move on. You can't be a slow positional player at that age...
True, the sport requires more dedication than some. Like being a sprinter vs. a distance runner. The sprinters who have talent can do basically nothing and be competitive. The distance runners must train substantially, no matter what their talent, or lose. Some guys just don't want to do the work, so when they become old enough when fitness training becomes mandatory for soccer (15 sounds about right), ciao.
If, and it's a big if, American kids give up on soccer more than other sports it is simply because you have to be good at one skill above all others in soccer: ball control. The other big three American sports, and especially football, allow success by many different physical skills. But if you don't have ball control in soccer, you get frustrated and drop out.
Understand, I have great respect for the endurance of soccer players, so this is meant in no way to be a slight against them. That said, how much actual running does a player do over the course of a match? There is a great deal of walking and very light jogging that the vast majority of the players on the pitch are doing during as the match moves along. I do think we misrepresent the sport to state that soccer players run for the whole 90. Fact is if your team is running like mad for an entire match, they are probably chasing and losing. During yesterdays Champions League match, the stats accumulated by EuroSport for Andrea Pirlo looked like this. Shots: 2 Total Passes: 42 Balls Won: 4 Balls Played: 48 Balls Lost: 7 Now, I would not represent this comprises anything near to the entire body of work for Pirlo in a very exciting match, but I would think it suggests he had plenty of on the pitch rest time as the game move along. Apologies for going off on a tangent, but perhaps we hurt the game by saying these guys are running around the entire match, when the game is one of high energy on the ball, jogging and walking movement to better position oneself defensively or to make runs when the opportunities present themselves.
Who forgot to tell Chris Albright? Great thread, and excellent posts all around. Stan, great work, and I think the "drop out at high school" myth is dispelled. However, I foresee the next challenge as the post-high school phase...and it comes down to money. The book Freakonomics has a great section on why so many crack dealers still live at home. The simple answer: the vast majority of them are dirt poor and can't afford their own place. However, the top crack dealers live like kings; this opportunity is worth chasing for those who may not have many, if any, other attractive options. The other big sports in the US have a similar dynamic, but it's not as exclusive. The goal is to reach the top flight, which most often (for football and basketball, less so for baseball) comes after at least a season of college ball - there is structure to this pursuit. While the free education is nice, reaching the top flight is the true pay-off: Minimum rookie salary NFL - $285,000 NBA - $412,718 MLB - $316,000 NHL - $450,000 (though there probably isn't much hockey/soccer cross-over) By comparison, three things hold back soccer: 1) The lack of a defined, solitary career path. Let's say your a top high school player. You could justifiably try the following to further your career: enter the MLS draft; head to college; trial with a team abroad; join a residency program. As such, the best US players do not concentrate in one area at the post-high school level. 2) Worldwide competition. A soccer league in practically every country in the world offers increased opportunity, but it also means increased competition. This impacts baseball, basketball to a lesser extent, and hardly touches football, but soccer competition is the most fierce. Can most people even locate Bolivia on a map? Yet two of MLS' greats hailed from this country. Additionally, opportunities outside of MLS may be limited based on work permit or foreigner restrictions. 3) Economic incentive. Soccer in the US is a cruel proposition. Whereas professional players in the top flight can live comfortably in other major leagues, a soccer player must be one of the very best to reach a similar compensation level. It's a daunting challenge, and high school players may decide that the risk isn't worth the payoff, especially if there is a college scholarship waiting or they play another sport. MLS only has 13 teams, and it isn't the best of the best (as is the case with other major US leagues.) However, I think it will take a top-down change in salary structure before the next gap is fixed.
My son and his buddies are seniors in High School. They've played for years. One of them would do well at a smaller college program. Here's the big question: Why do it? Why play ball at Sheperd College if you academically qualify for admittance to Va. Tech's Engineering program (Just examples, folks, no harm)? I encourage all these kids to go to the school they want to go to and play club if they are good enough or IM if they are not, but get the best education for them. If they are late bloomers and become great players, the world will come find you. On the other hand, if you have no idea what you want to do with your life, and are a middle of the pack student, and you get an offer to play at a small school, knock yourself out. But thinking of a pro career is pretty foolish at this point. The luckiest may find themselves making 17,700 after 4 years of college. And putting up with the NCAA and it's rules.
Sure you can - I was one of 92K watching Chivas USA play New England. Of course you can argue that the fact Barcelona was also playing that day might have something to do with it. But on a more serious note, Pro Soccer in LA dwarfs what pro football draws (which is nothing because theire is no team). Galaxy - Chivas game this weekend will be a real sellout. Soccer games (MFL variety) frequently are the highest rated sports broadcasts in LA. Many Mexican American youth players who a few years ago would turn up their nose at MLS games, are starting to pay attention and go to games. California is a leading indicator in US and soccer is becoming entrenched in more and more areas and will continue to grow.
I don't think anyone is saying soccer players run the entire 90 minutes. And of course it depends what position you play and size of field. Midfielders cover the most distance, then forwards and defenders. The average distance is about 3-5 miles. Nothing to brag about, but it's those intermitent full sprints that kill you. How Far Do Soccer Players Run? Soccer Fitness (pie chart breaks down type of player kinesis)
Lots of different situations for different kids. For instance, if your kid was good enough to be a squad player (not to say a starter) at UVA, it would vastly improve his chances of getting into school, or even getting an "Academic" scholarship.
True, but the flip-side of that anecdote is that many of the people in these industries are focused on that very top rank. Most of those dealers would never have become that if they knew what the average dealer made. But what they see is the successful ones driving Escalades with 20-inch rims, conspicuously consuming in every way. Those at the top are glorified and made the example of the career. So in that respect, David Beckham and friends, and their very visible making of a whole lot of money, may make some difference. Probably a great deal more than the minimum salary, of which most young athletes will never be aware.
Some great posts here about leaving the sport. I observed over the last 15 years the following reasons of players leaving my son's and daughter's youth teams. 1. Lack of interest in the sport of soccer. Just didn't like it. 2. Moved on to other interests. Found something more compelling. 3. Fitness required was too much. 4. Due to a relationship with the opposite sex. 5. Finally told Mom and Dad they were tired of playing just for them. 6. Financial difficulties 7. Transportation difficulties 8. Couldn't make any teams try-outs. Moved on. 9. Cut by their team. Moved on. 10. Injury 11. No local team or team dissolved. 12. Tire of abusive parents or coaches. 13. Began using drugs/alcohol,etc 14. Divorce 15. Poor youth training/coaching lead to inability to compete at higher level. I'm sure there are many more reasons.
But up until this point, the top rank was what, Palencia at $1.3 mil? Given that Beckham is regarded as the exception and not the rule, I don't think anything has changed yet.
Living in upstate NY, the sport of hockey comes immediately to mind. But then again, there doesn't seem to be particularly high interest in the NHL among youth players around here, perhaps for the same reason.
Perhaps. But on the other hand, what percentage many youth players actually play the full 80-90 minutes? Most teams have some kind of rotation. Additionally, if the lack of desire to run among kids that age was such a big deal, then, according to numbers in the original post, why does track have almost 50 percent more participation than soccer? I know that also includes sprints and field events but still...
There are undoubtedly many reasons, probably one for each person. I was posting on what I have oberved in some cases. I wouldn't pretend it was research. But to me there is no doubt that there are some pretty high standards for speed and stamina that cull the heard pretty quickly at this age.
That's what happened when I played AAU basketball in the '90s. We went to weekend tournaments. Parents chaperoned, transported and paid wads of cash. We played basketball all day and then went back to our hotel rooms and watched Jordan in the NBA finals. Soccer still doesn't have a team in every city. How can there be a tradition of taking Jill and Johnny out to the game if there isn't a game to go see? This is part of the reason why the USL is important in the grand scheme of American soccer. We need a larger footprint of available professional level games to take kids to.
Now he has played, though only in a friendly. Bump this thread. I find it relevant to a lot of the "what will Beckham do for soccer?" conversation.
I went to the University of Kentucky from '87-'91, and there was no varsity soccer team, only club. They now have both men's and women's, but the men play in Conference USA because only three SEC schools have a men's soccer program (UK, South Carolina, Vanderbilt.) The SEC does have women's soccer. Note those three SEC schools typically have the weaker football programs in the conference. It's not just a matter of will soccer catch on in these traditional football power conferences, but also a Title IX issue in balancing the number of scholarships among men and women athletes in these programs.