A link to a plan proposed by one of our BSers is up at Top Drawer Soccer: http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/SetPieces/20030922220309/view I disagree with the article in that I do think MLS should take up the Academy mantle, but I'll listen to what others think.
Expense is the issue. I agree that ultimately the MLS pros should pick it up but for now his point is that we'll have continuous playing amongst top players with top coaches under a form that MLS won't have to pick up the expense. They are not financially at a point to take on the large expense. I think there should be an affiliation between his idea and the MLS that he left out. Pros dictating form and function of our top level development program should be our goal right now without having to pay for it. Baby steps until MLS can take it on it all it's forms, expense included.
How exactly do you think that MLS could set up academies? They can't sign the players to contracts - a college education being worth between five and six figures, kids aren't going to just sign themselves up for 100 dollars a month and ruin their eligibility. Without these contracts, though, how do you establish rights to a player? You don't have him under contract, do you really expect other teams, whether they be in MLS or abroad, to just say "Oh, they've got dibs, we'd better not touch him"? There's also a serious problem with MLS's footprint. This isn't England, where it's pretty much a certainty that young kids will have a club in their city, or at least within about ten miles. Even when MLS hits the fifa-mandated 18 teams, there will still be entire states that don't have MLS teams in them. And, without the ability to sign kids to contracts, how is MLS going to be able to move these kids from Idaho or Michigan or Oklahoma to their new cities? As much as MLS establishing academies would be nice, I think that, if they ever exist, they'll look a lot more like multiple Bradentons, where the best of the best are trained, than the European factories. And even if that happens, the youth clubs that currently exist will still be a major source of talent, and we're going to have to deal with that. I think that the fire's new joint venture with that west michigan club, and coach-sharing programs, will be the best situation for at least the next several years.
MLS teams? They would have no choice. If he signs with MLS, MLS assigns the players as they see fit. They can write it straight in to the rules. If a player trains with an academy as a youth player, if and when that players signs with MLS, the team he trained with has an option to retain that player. Everybody else goes into the draft. Another pro club could sign him, but within MLS, that player would be tied to his academy side. Considering that the majority of top American amateur players sign with MLS now, I'd hardly say this is a deal breaker. As far as College eligibility, there's likely a way for the player to train as an amateur and retain his amateur status for the NCAA. If that means the program is a separate entity whom MLS teams only sponsor (with sponsorship consisting of coaches and facilities), then that can be worked out. It seems his plan is simply more difficult (10 years down the line, getting club teams to completely restructure, etc.) than MLS writing a check and saying "let's do this." Do you really expect FC Delco to want to be part of overhauling a system that has been so good to them thus far?
We should probably merge the two threads...this one and the one in Youth Soccer. Mods?? While Rob's article was prospective in nature, I want to add some current/retrospective context to the discussion. Right now, if you are U11 or U12 boy (or more specifically the parent of such a boy), and you have some talent, and some long-term potentinal, and you want your kid over the next 5 years to get --the best training --the best teammates --the best competition --the best chance at participating in and winning state and regional competitions, as well as top tournaments --the best visibility for college/professional coaches . . .where do you go? Where? If you're in eastern Pennsylvania, the Charlotte Triangle, northern Illinois, north Texas, southern California, southeast Michigan, northern Ohio, Phoenix, Portland, St. Louis.....where do you go? Well, if you do have ANY sense of how to do what they call in business, "due diligence" -- you know EXACTLY where to go. In fact, all it takes is to pend a couple hours on the web, and probably lookking at the State Cup and Regional winners over the last 5 to 10 years, plus some phone calls to get a richer perspective, in order to see where you should go. We already have a de facto academy set up at these top clubs -- as Claude Rains said in Casablanca, all the usual suspects -- , but without the academy trappings (live in dorms, daily practices, staff such as psychologists/nutritionists). In effect what Rob proposes could happen...and happen a lot faster than in 10 years...IF the dough were there. Of course, there would be some tricky logistical and managerial ssues -- where to house the kids, etc. Kevbrunton on the other thread suggested that political issues might stand in the way, but I think those walls have pretty much crumbled. The adminstrative buckets to implement a "national academy league" are already in place in the form of US Club/Super Y. The states would be able to do nothing about it. Right now, these top clubs are already aggregating the talent. I've seen them up close at state cup, at Super Y, at Dallas Cup. I see tons of talent that would indeed be enhanced if the kids practice 5 days a week instead of 2 or 3. Sure, it would be great if MLS would do it, but that would add ANOTHER element of Balkanization to the landscape, threatening the prestige clubs as well as the state organizations. THAT might be politically messy. In the end, it all boils down to who can write the check. My back of the enevelope calculations are that a 26 team league, with 4 age level groups in each team at full time local residency, would cost anywhere between $25 and $35 million a year. That is a lot of money for soccer. To implement this academy vision -- really the simpliest and most direct way to do it -- may in the end be too costly for any sponsor -- the Federation, Nike -- even if they split costs. Even if this system spit out 8-10 professional players annually, each ultimately worth a $1 million apiece on the transfer market, you STILL would not defray your costs. In the end, this has to be almost a philanthropic endeavor. Think we could get the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to ante up??
Karl, what about the USSF setting up a finder's fee of some sort for the youth clubs? Say when one of their kids gets a start in a pro game then they get (I'm making up a number of course) $50K. If they get on any youth or senior national team then the club might get another $50K. That would cost a whole lot less than an accademy yet reward clubs that do develop players.
And _that_ is the problem. The only people likely to write the check are going to be the people who might see some benefit from doing so. And that AIN'T the Chicago Magic. You're expecting the Chicago Magic to start doing twice as much work as their currently doing, and then to stop charging kids for becoming part of their club. This isn't going to happen, and whether it's best for player development or not is irrelevant. The Chicago Magic would not stand to gain monetarily from developing quality professionals. But MLS would. MLS can sell the players for transfer fees. MLS would benefit financially from improved National Team results. MLS would benefit financially from the increased quality of their professional players. If there's anyone who will benefit the most from the program, it's MLS so MLS is by far the one most likely to be receptive to funding it. And if MLS has professional coaching, professional training facilities, would benefit from expanding their brand name into the youth soccer market and are going to cut the check for the thing regardless of who runs it, why on earth would MLS have the Chicago Magic run their development program for them? MLS has the coaching, facilities and investment capital to run such an operation. But most importantly, they are the only ones besides US Soccer with any _motivation_ at all to do so. They also have the ability to expand into new markets. As MLS adds teams, they can add academies. As revenues grow, teams can even add academies in non-MLS markets like the Columbus Crew Academy of Memphis or the Metrostars Academy of Philadelphia. The model is expandable. If we want our youth to train in a professional environment, who better to provide that training than the professional clubs who already provide that training for older players? Who has the experience, facilities, coaching and capital to do this and stands to benefit the most from it? MLS. As far as MLS getting into the youth soccer scene upsetting the current powerhouse clubs: at the moment it would be a minimal number of players (700 or so) and frankly there isn't a whole lot those clubs could do about it without cutting off their own nose to spite their own face. If MLS decides to do this, there's very little the big clubs could do to stop them, and very little reason why they should try as it's unlikely to affect them more than a slight ripple. The Chicago Magic would still be one of the top youth clubs in the country, they'd still win tournaments and still get their players seen by Colleges for scholarships. But the MLS academies would at least solve most of the current developmental problems these clubs currently suffer from for the relatively few players it provides for. While it may initially and for the forseeable future be Bradenton X 12 (at a younger age) plus the club system, Bradenton X 12 plus the club system is a good deal better than Bradenton X 1 plus the club system.
FINALLY ....Somebody with some comon sense !! or the crack house was close today ? Guys... there is no snake oil on this subject. The only motivation that MLS need is to get monetary benefit of developing and selling players, just like any other part of the world, or are we gona wait until Bayer leverkusen come again and take another kid and sell him to us like with Donovan case ?
So what would stop a 17 year old Chicago Fire youth player from signing with BL? The kid isn't under contract. How would a transfer fee result? What contract would BL buy out? What if the kid goes to college for a year then signs with BL? I still think that development of youth players is the business of the USSF. I think THEY should negociate some sort of agreement with FIFA about transfer fees that foreign clubs must pay US kids and use that money to reward youth clubs for developing pro players (no matter where the kid goes).
You'd have to ask superdave, but I think it's something about a fifa rule against the international transfer of children.
You're right. What I meant was the kid is a 17 yo Chicago Fire youth player, turns 18 and decides to go with Bayern Leverkusen. In theory, MLS/Chicago Fire would get no transfer fee because the kid was an unsigned player.
Interesting Discussion I think this is an interesting discusssion. The only way the U.S. is going to become a world power in soccer is if they figure this part out. I do not think that Bradenton is the way to go. I do think it serves its purpose, but how are you to develop a true national pool out of 40 players? Some of these players don't even develop into world class soccer players. I also do not like the setup of Bradenton. I don't think the academies is a good environment for kids in an academic sense. To be away from your parents and your family for an extended period of time is not healthy. Even though kids are playing at a higher level, I don't think they necessarily have to go to school together, live together etc. You are developing a player not a robot. I think this is also unhealthy and I think the player would be better off in his own school environment and then train with his club team. I know the debate about logistics and the player getting enough practice time during the week will be an issue but I think the clubs can do a sufficient job with this. The soccer clubs in the states just need to keep evolving but the only way they will evolve is with financial resources and this is the tough thing that will be hard to figure out.
You talk like this exact thing doesn't happen now. The problem is unsolvable as long as college remains the primary goal of these players. Furthermore, if there were substantial transfer fees needed to acquire American teenagers, there would be no demand for them. Either way your not going to get much transfer money from American 17 year olds, Freddy Adu excepted. But at the moment, there isn't exactly a flood of high schoolers signing up with foreign leagues. Most sign with colleges and then an American pro team, and most of the rest go straight to the American pros. The increase in transfer fees such a program would bring about would be from players who sign with MLS out of high school or college, show well on the national team and transfer out after two or three years in the league. Doing this isn't the _responsibility_ of anybody, and that's why we have the problem we have. It's not about responsibility, it's about who stands to benefit from such youth programs being in place. The reason these programs exist around the world is because most of the individual club teams either see advantages in running them or severe disadvantages in not running them. Here the only two groups that stand to benefit from this situation are US Soccer and MLS and their clubs. The amateur youth soccer clubs will always first and foremost be concerned about the amateur youth soccer clubs and not about player development at the professional level. You shouldn't ask them to do something that neither have experience at, or an existing desire to do. They are not an answer now, or in the future. If MLS survives as a league, this will eventually cease to be an optional choice. They will _have_ to do it. They will desperately _want_ to do it. I think they should do it now. Particularly when one of the biggest supporters of doing things this way is probably the most influential person in American soccer. I think 12 team academies (about 60 kids) with most of the kids living at home and the rest being out of market kids in residence, could be done by 2005 with a yearly cost in today dollars of about $18 million total. That's a $1.5 million a club bite. Bradenton can still run, if USSoccer likes, and it can pick and choose players from the team academies and the existing clubs. I think if we try and go through the big clubs like the Irvine Strikers and what have you, we're simply asking to embroiled in a costly mess. The first thing you'll see are these clubs using their academy status as a way to entice players at pre-academy levels for increased fees. The thinking would be that if FC Delco were one of the academies, then players on the FC Delco U-13 team might have a huge advantage in getting selected for the U-14 academy side. Therefore they could adjust their U11, U12 and U13 fees accordingly, and we'd be back to pay to play. Instead of wading into this mess in a pair of golashes and trying to clean it up. Why not just avoid it altogether and use entities from outside this system? That would be MLS.
My point is that the MLS can't sign minors. No one can sign an American minor. Ask Macaulay Culkin. I think it's up to FIFA and the USSF to figure out how we can create the proper reward system for developing youth.
If something is not done... If something is not done about this situation this will be a roadblock to the fast development of soccer in this nation, by the way how does teen stars like Brittney Spears and others do any legal contract with record companies ??
First, if some other entity, like Nike or the USSF, funds this operation, I would bet elite clubs would be eager and willing to do it. This would mean another source of revenue for them. Second, let's look at the hard economic reality here. What's your average American 1st division soccer player worth? The answer?? Not much. MLS doesn't need youth teams now -- and likely for the foreseeable future -- because players are being developed by other means -- elite clubs, college, Bradenton. There's more than enough supply. Now the supply may be wanting to one degree or another, but it's there. To use a culinary analogy, the USA may be cooking up Olive Garden, while France is rustling up Lutece-like fare, but guess what?? There's still some nutrition. I have said this elsewhere, it boils down to economics. For ManU it is extremely cost effective to run a youth program because it's cheaper to build a David Beckham than it is to buy him. If I spend $1 million a year on my youth scheme, but which every three years spits out two players who are worth $2-3 million each, well, that is a nice little enterprise I've got going. To use financial terms, that's giving me an internal rate of return well north of 50%. But what financial incentive does, say, an LA Galaxy have to build a Memo Gonzalez? Why bother?? In the end, he's not worth that much, and besides, someone else will supply him, and it won't cost me a cent. That fact is that a professional 1st division soccer player in the United States (whether foreign or domestic) viewed purely in market terms, is simply not worth as much as a English, German, Dutch or an Italian 1st division player. The reasons for that are very complex -- they have as much to do with work permit and restricition rules, the general level of popularity in the game here in the States, as well as it does with talent levels. Every professional franchise is faced with what I would call "talent acquisition costs." To use a culinary metaphor, for ManU its cheaper to cook at home and eat in (thought they CAN go out for a really FABULOUS meal if they want to). For the LA Galaxy, eating out, it happens, is extremely cheap because it just doesn't need the kind of fare ManU does. You brought up Bruce Arena; you're right that Bruce wants professional development. But I bet that if you sat down with him, he really wouldn't care where or by whom professional development is done. And by professional development, that means --daily year round training --35-45 high level competitive matches --intense competition for roster spots and playing time THAT defines the nature of professional training -- who does it, frankly, is rather secondary.
Re: If something is not done... On her 18th birthday they will ask her to reaffirm the contract her guardian signed. http://www.gtlaw.com/pub/articles/1996/jacobsonm96a.asp http://cobrands.public.findlaw.com/newcontent/consumerlaw/chp2_a.html http://www.lawforkids.org/QA/Other/Other36.cfm
First of all, they're not signing anybody. They're running a youth academy and inviting players scholarships to receive pro level soccer training. When the player turns pro he can sign with MLS or anybody else he wants. MLS' advantage would be that most of the good players would gravitate toward MLS. The clubs' advantage would be that the good players they developed would be assigned to them by MLS when they join the league.
voros - a few things you may be overlooking: 1. the youth clubs CAN recoup money from this. The FIFA regs make it clear that clubs who develop players can receive compensation from clubs that sign players to pro contracts. Actually, some U.S. clubs have already gotten some money from European clubs for some players signed in the last year. 2. These academies can also become a lower tier of the American pro system, some kind of U21 League (i know i don't mention this in the article) and the best players transferred. 3. The corporate sponsorship is absolutely necessary. The clubs need to be underwriten for doing this. I understand that they won't do it if it doesn't work financially, but the sponsorship can help make that so. 4. remember, the clubs will still have their other teams and people will still to play on those teams. It's likely that academy players would pay something as well. I do agree fundamentally about pro development being preferred, but not seeing MLS as able to do this now (and they have too many other vital issues to focus on), this seems the next best thing - ultimately the academy model would build very deep ties with MLS. Like it or not, our country is just different because of college emphasis and the lack of a pro heritage. your comments are thought-provoking, thanks.
Do you know approximately how much the clubs get paid in these kinds of situations? Because, obviously, it has to be up to a certain amount in order for the clubs to see this as an opportunity to make money, and not simply an occasional byproduct of the system they already have in place. Additionally, why would MLS clubs not have to pay the universities or youth clubs that developed the players they collect in the draft every year? Is 22 or 23 simply too old for this kind of rule to be in effect? Do you know if Memo or Gaven's youth clubs got paid, or was their development simply attributed to Bradenton? I'm afraid I don't understand how this system works. I'd also like to register my support of Attacking Minded's suggestion of a 'finder's fee,' although I think this probably isn't the right term to use. If clubs know that they will be getting serious money if their players hit certain levels (U-20 team, drafted, full nat, etc.) that's going to motivate the clubs to try to produce this kind of player, and would be a far more cost effective measure than something like Bradenton is (though I think Bradenton is great).
Personally I think the article is way too nice to college soccer. How is a college player supposed to develop at the same rate as a player his age in some foreign team's reserves? Somehow I imagine a player at Man U or Arsenal or Roma or wherever is practicing more than 20 hours a week. I'm all for finding ways to put players through college. I just don't think they should be playing college soccer. They should be playing in some sort of professional setting. I don't think the American culture is that entrenched with the idea of college soccer. I don't know of a single college in Louisiana that has men's soccer. If we can ensure that players will be given a college education while playing in the professional ranks, we'll soothe the fears of mothers who want their kids to get an education. Judging by most of the responses on this board the youth system in America needs a change. I think the article had some very good ideas. But I worry that you'd end up seeing tons of political fighting between various groups. I really don't know enough to say who should be running a league like the one mentioned in the article.
It turns out that I was wrong about what I had said about there not being any men's college soccer programs in Louisiana. Apparently the tiny Louisiana College is in the business of exporting soccer players to Nepal. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63940&perpage=15&pagenumber=1
Practice Time This number is far too high. Barcelona's U15s practice 6 hours weekly, 4 sessions at 1 1/2 hours each. The U18s are 9 hours, 6 sessions at 1 1/2 hours each. Newcastle's U17s are 12 hours per week, 6 sessions at 2 hours each. Our kids in Bradenton are getting plenty of quantity. The relevant issues are quality, competition, unofficial training (i.e., street soccer), and their level of preparedness when they joined Bradenton in the first place.
Me too. I find that pro coaches talk about college soccer the way youth club coaches talk about high school soccer. The pro coaches would much rather player didn't waste the spring semester in college or make do with the PDL in the summer. So I might word a SAT analogy test question like this: Club soccer is to HS soccer as pro soccer is to . . . . . . . . However, club coaches talk up college soccer as "the goal". I suspect that is for a number of reasons. One reason is that most people who can afford national level club soccer put a high premium on education. This then ties in with using ODP as a resume builder for college applications, etc., etc. In other words, what I see in this article is HALF the argument against amateur soccer, i.e. do away with HS soccer for the elite player but it's missing the other half, i.e. do away with college soccer for the elite player. Running a league should be the business of a board created by the USSF. We have an odd situation in the US in that the MLS is the league. The teams don't exist as separate businesses playing in a league which run as a cooperative effort between the member clubs and the FA. In the US, there is only one member club, the MLS, and the "FA" (the USSF) is more on the outside looking in.
Re: Practice Time Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I was referring more to players in the US college age group, i.e. 18-22. Anybody that age in Europe is going to be done with school and playing in the reserves (or the first team if they're good enough), and I imagine they're practicing more than the NCAA 20-hour limit. It's not really the inequity between Bradenton and pro club youth setups I was discussing, it's the disparity between the NCAA and the foreign pro club reserves.