You are right, but I think this is starting to reveal to more and more people that there is a huge element of the American soccer landscape who could literally not care how we do in the World Cup,so long as the domestic honey pot gets bigger and fuller and stays solely their own.
You raise several good points in here... One thing I'd throw out there is that this era was the peak of the 'pay to play' epidemic. I'm an '89 and my brother is a '94. We both played youth soccer extensively and were pretty good by the time we finished high school (he was All-State twice, and I was nowhere near as good but made some All-Conference and All-District teams). However, neither of us really got involved in club programs, primarily due to the exorbitant cost, even though we come from a comfortably middle-class background. My brother eventually found a spot on a low-tier club team, which offered some exposure without as much cost - this helped him play D2 in college, while I merely played for the club team at my university. I have a distinct memory from grade school where we had a new kid in our class who played for a solid club and claimed to be a starter (we were 7th graders, so I have no clue if this was true, could've been talking himself up), and got cut from our school team where no one else played club. Now, this only matters insofar as the developmental apparatus in our country exclusively pays attention to club soccer - no one ever got invited to an ODP camp based on their performance in a park on the weekend playing YMCA ball or for their school team. And we grew up in St. Louis, which is supposed to be one of the best places in the country for youth soccer. Now, this isn't me saying that either of us would've made a difference to the national team, or even gone pro or anything like that. But the mere fact that high-level training opportunities were prohibitively expensive prevented a lot of kids in our generation from advancing, or being recognized in the first place. There weren't scouts at my YMCA or middle school games when I was 3 or 5 or 12 looking for someone who they might be able to sell for a profit down the line, which of course is the norm in Europe, South America, and literally everywhere else in the world. One of my best friends playing on these teams growing up always stood out as an athlete and was eventually an All-American decathlete, but no one ever asked him to play for their club team on scholarship or anything like that. In Europe, he's offered a spot in a club at the age of 6, as soon as it's obvious that he's at another level in terms of coordination, skill, and athleticism. I wonder what the model looked like in the era you reference, from the 70's through the early 80's? Based on conversations I've had with folks in that generation, it seemed like a more meritocratic system. Even though the training and interest may have been at a lower level players advanced based on ability, not how much they could pay, and through school teams as much as their clubs, and even clubs were less costly to join than they were by the mid- to late-90's, at least as far as I know. Hopefully this doesn't come off as sour grapes... Just trying to say that the system of youth development was demonstrably terrible for the often referenced 'missing generation' in ways it might not have been previously. TL;DR: Pay-to-play ruined my life, and our generation
This article is required reading for anyone wishing to join or continue posting in USA Men The United States was thought to be a rising star—20 years ago https://t.co/28XuWu970n— The Economist (@TheEconomist) October 25, 2017 There will be a short test on Friday.
There's a huge taboo about discussing the fact that the pay-to-play system and the emphasis on size & speed at the youth level in the USA is aimed to weeding out Latino players. On the one hand, one can see the current system promotes diversity, and that may be good for the bottom-line: the majority has the money, and they're not as likely to follow a team full of Gonzalezes and Coronas. On the other hand, we pay the price: young Latino talent know they stand no chance in the American system, and move to play for their countries of ancestry instead.
I don't think it's because of a conspiracy against Latinos. I think the issue is that the US Soccer Federation's main priority is making money rather then developing players.
What evidence is there that the system is "aimed at weeding out Latino players"? It probably has the effect of weeding out Latino players, but I seriously doubt that is an aim of the system. The simpler explanation is that the system is aimed at collecting tuition from youth players, and the families most willing and able to pay are white.
Back when MLS started, the big challenge was bringing soccer out of the barrio, to put it bluntly. So far soccer was identified with the Hispanic minority and recent European immigrants, it was going to lack the cachet required to make of it a successful, money-making mass product. Of course you'll never find any evidence of such talks, that's the sort of stuff discussed on the golf course (and anyone wondering why politicians spend so much time golfing, it's because out there in the greens with the caddies sent 20 yards away, there's the only place you can talk with the security of knowing no one is recording what you say). A lot of the "soccer is anti-American" sentiment also was tenuously camouflaged racism, back in the day. Making money and going mainstream are intimately related, and going mainstream means making sure the majority is somehow represented (otherwise soccer would continue being a niche market, like the Madea comedies). It was not the main aim, but it was one of the collateral, necessary aims: to keep a certain level of diversity and avoid group-dominance until the sport was entrenched --sort of like the NBA & the NFL at first. And let's not forget it was people from the established leagues the ones who made that first push (and even now own most of the system).
SMH....the mental gymnastics folks go through to "prove" racist intent is ridiculous. I have breaking news for you: rich old white men on the golf course don't plot how to keep any "group" of people "down." They plot how to collect more money for them and theirs. They do not GIAF what color the person that has the money is, all money is green. Without respect to any stated altruistic purpose MLS and SUM are for the purpose of enriching the shareholders of MLS. I can agree that some the outcomes appear racist, but that has more to do with their love of money than any particular hatred towards any group of people. I mean they exploit MLS players and got a court granted exemption to do so. Aren't they like every color under the rainbow, including white?
Whether by dint of racism or classism,the exclusionary nature of our youth development is at this point undeniable.
They take on the Dutch failures also today; https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/10/economist-explains-17
Open a private browsing window, if your browser allows those, and you can view a couple of articles for free.
What sport do you not have to pay for to get instruction and organized competition? Think about what hockey costs. AAU hoops. 7 on 7 and football "camps". Even little league baseball costs money.
Hint: Go to the site in a private window. Paywall gone. In any event, I have posted key passages. I hope I'm not violating the fair use policy (mods: it's less than half the article): snips: THE last time America failed to qualify for the football World Cup, the tournament still included West Germany and the Soviet Union. But when the sport’s signature event kicks off in Russia next year, the stars and stripes will be conspicuously absent. In much of the world, there is little shame in missing the event: well-regarded teams such as the Netherlands, Ghana and Chile will also be staying home in 2018. Unlike those countries, however, the United States enjoys the great advantage of belonging to CONCACAF, the confederation for North America and the Caribbean—a region so weak it has not had a single team reach even the Cup’s semi-final stage since 1930. Even though America is far from a footballing powerhouse, its streak of seven consecutive World Cup appearances was one of the longest in the world. ...the fact that the United States put itself in such a precarious position that a single own goal could knock it out of football’s marquee tournament speaks ill of the process that led up to that point. America dwarfs the rest of CONCACAF in population and GDP and dominates countless other sports, and football is widely played across the country. Nonetheless, the United States merely remains an upper-tier side by CONCACAF’s modest standards, rather than a uniquely dominant one. American fans can only hope that following the indignity of the country’s finest footballers watching the 2018 World Cup on television, the lords of the sport in the United States will at last embark on the fundamental reforms necessary to vault the team into the global elite. Long a minnow in global football, 20 years ago the United States was thought to be a rising star in the world’s most popular sport. Since then, however, the team’s progress has flatlined. The United States failed to win a single match in the 2006 World Cup, and was eliminated in the first round of the knockout stage in 2010 and 2014. To an extent, this recent pattern of treading water reflects the broader trend of football in the United States: much better than it was, but still with a long ways to go. And after two decades, MLS revenues remain a fraction of those of America’s more established sports, and are lower than even those of the second division of football in England. ...although the foundation of interest in the sport now appears solid, producing world-class talent requires infrastructure for player development as well. And in America, that remains woefully shaky. The countries that compete for World Cup championships all have methods of identifying promising youngsters early, and coaching and training them intensively by the time they are teenagers. America has much to learn from these countries. Even at the earliest ages, it lets many potential stars fall by the wayside. Whereas college basketball coaches scour playgrounds and high school gyms looking for the next Michael Jordan, youth football in America operates on a “pay-to-play” system, in which the sport is treated as a mere extracurricular activity that well-off parents can choose to invest in for their children. As a result, boys whose parents cannot afford expensive club dues, and often related travel costs, are frozen out of the player-development pipeline. ...amateurism is hard to reconcile with the demands of training to compete with the world’s best. America’s systemic enforced amateurism also has a hidden cost. Lower-division clubs in Europe, as well as top-tier teams in Latin America and Africa, stay in business by discovering young talent and then selling it on to rich European clubs. As a result, they often prioritise the development of prized prospects over the imperative to win matches. In contrast, colleges want to win at all costs, and would be much less willing to, say, play a green youngster in a high-pressure game in order to give him experience. Finally, the business model of the highest level of football in America was designed largely to ensure the financial security of club owners rather than to make the country a magnet for elite talent. MLS has a salary cap and centralises player contracts, depressing player wages. And without the promotion-and-relegation system that prevails everywhere else, there is no market mechanism to punish clubs who refuse to pay up for players. A club looking to join MLS has a better chance of acceptance if it shows it can probably extort a cushy stadium subsidy from its hometown than if it spends years developing sustained footballing success or a passionate fan base. Any knowledgeable supporter could offer an immediate reform agenda: dedicating more money to subsidise the sport for children and teenagers to ensure that all promising athletes can learn regardless of their families’ income; setting up a promotion-and-relegation system in the professional game; and encouraging young players to ply their trade in Europe in the meantime, as Mr Pulisic has done. Unfortunately, immediately following the defeat to Trinidad, the signs were not encouraging. Mr Arena stepped up to the podium and declared that “there’s nothing wrong with what we’re doing”. Mr Gulati has refused to step aside and been cagey about what reforms, if any, he would support. Both fans of the American team and those around the world who want to see the finest talents achieve their potential should hope that the United States does not let this crisis go to waste.
There is money and then there is money with 0's in the end. You are talking orders of magnitude difference in money. If you are pretty good for AAU , 7 on 7, etc. and you don't have money you still get to play. I work in a middle school with a very high percentage of kids well below the poverty line and plenty of them play AAU ball or track or some 7 on 7 camps but nothing for soccer. I coach soccer and track and I can tell you those AAU kids that run track have beautiful technique that we do not have the time or the expertise really to teach. I dream about what soccer could be like if we ever provide something like that for those kids.
The stratification of access for our youth sports and the massive reduction of public school physical ed is pervasive and shameful.
Where is the money going to come from? Where are the "qualified" coaches going to come from if there is not money involved? It costs 40 K for an A license supposedly. Who is going to do that and work for free?
@Eighteen Alpha - thanks for the link to the Economist article. It certainly paints a drab picture of U.S. player development up to this point. I don't think it's as dire as the article portrays the situation. For example, 3 of our 11 starters (27%) in the T&T fiasco were what we would consider "White, Non-Latino or Hispanic" Americans. Of our U17 roster - and I will admit it was not a scientific review of ethnicity, 8 of the 21 players rostered were "White, Non-Latino or Hispanic" which translates to 38% of the team, whereas, as of the last census, that demographic made up 61% of the U.S. population. So while, I agree with the article that soccer to this point soccer development has been reliant on middle-class pay to play, diversity of our national teams and pools has increased and that's a good thing. Can more be done? A lot more? Hell Yes! I agree that economically impacted groups have a significant disadvantage in getting players into the pool. Those of you who follow the youth ranks much more closely than I do can let me know if these ideas stand a chance or are completely nuts. The Development Academy - One positive aspect I see about the DA system right now is it is the first national systemic attempt to develop soccer players here from the ground up. One of the issues I think the U.S. faces is that our sheer geographic size and population make it problematic to control a centralized system attached to professional teams like one can do in Germany, the Netherlands and England - through out all tiers (e.g. Premier league down through Division 2 and lower. There will be huge portions of our country that will not have access to professional soccer teams, and a program like the DA can help identify talented kids from these regions through team selection, play, showcases, etc. Municipal populations around professional teams, and I'll use the Fire as an example, are too large to have every single talented kid try out, and earn a roster spot, therefore regional Chicago DA teams are important to developing talent. The Fire (and I hope every other MLS team) pays the fees for anyone who makes one of their Academy teams. Unfortunately, it's still pay to play for the other DA teams. I know that some teams offer scholarships to outstanding talents, but I'm skeptical as to how often that is applied by these mostly "non-profit" groups. So: 1. How about U.S. Soccer use some of their surplus to establish a couple scholarships for each DA team? Would this encourage more kids who could not afford travel fees to try out? Would more teams be willing to take on talented kids who may not be able to meet the financial requirements? 2. Revisit the idea of reimbursing clubs for training costs for kids who may move on to a professional team (starting with reimbursing the parents first of course!). Would more teams offer more of their resources knowing that those will be returned for them for developing quality players? 3. Once DA kids reach high school/college age, how do we keep developing those who are not in a professional situation? Relegation/promotion? Some type of definitive minor league system like MLB? (I have no clue - this is a gray area) 4. What other resources are available that may move soccer development away from pay to play? Maybe U.S. Soccer should establish non-profit "play centers" in economically disadvantaged areas where kids can come play pick up, maybe have informal training for those who show up, some type of grassroots playground league? Of course, this doesn't include coaching development. I think someone up thread mentioned that anyone willing to put in the effort, could possibly earn their A license, but would they know how to coach? Is this just a function of time and experience? If we can figure out how to get more talented kids into the pool how do we ensure they are receiving excellent training? In the end, I'm afraid the key criterium is going to be time, but I look at teams like the U17s and I'm hopeful.
Hell man, I didn't know we were talking about how to fund it, I was merely pointing out that for all the other major sorts in the US there are avenues of development that do not exist in soccer. The geography is also a problem in lesser populated areas since there isn't anybody nearby to play, and that requires travel to play outside teams. FTR if I knew how to fund it, I wouldn't be here talking about what we need, you guys would be talking about what we were doing and trying to emulate it in your towns. This was always going to be a problem in building from the top down. In addition soccer does not get the subsidized NCAA apprenticeship boost that the other sports reap. Soccer works better when it happens organically from the ground up with local support akin to the NCAA football in the pre-corporatism era.